The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

North/South Ministerial Council: Inland Waterways

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement about the North/South Ministerial Council on inland waterways meeting held on Friday 23 November 2001 in Carrick-on-Shannon. I call the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I wish to report to the Assembly on the fourth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council on inland waterways, which was held in sectoral format in Carrick-on-Shannon, County Leitrim, on Friday 23 November.
Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Dr Seán Farren and I represented the Administration at the meeting. In the absence, due to illness, of Minister de Valera, the Irish Government were represented by Ms Mary Coughlan TD, Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, who chaired the meeting. This statement is made on behalf of Dr Farren also and has been approved by him.
The meeting opened with a progress report from the chief executive of Waterways Ireland, Mr John Martin. The Council noted that Waterways Ireland has continued with its new works and maintenance programmes. Three major navigation projects at Limerick, Ballinasloe and Boyle have been completed and opened to boats. Other major capital projects on the Grand Canal, the Royal Canal and the Lough Erne moorings are progressing, and a contract for a major road bridge on the Royal Canal was let recently.
The Council noted that work on the Erne system and the lower Bann continues to be undertaken on behalf of Waterways Ireland by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Rivers Agency under a service-level agreement which has been extended until the end of December 2001.
The Council noted that consultants had been appointed to prepare a marketing and promotions strategy. To complement this initiative, Waterways Ireland will arrange for a series of consultation seminars at various locations to encourage input on relevant user issues by interested parties. In parallel, consultants have also been appointed to develop a corporate image for Waterways Ireland.
Organisationally, Waterways Ireland has continued to establish itself, with 250 staff currently in post. A newly appointed director for finance and personnel has joined in recent weeks, and two other new directors will be taking up their posts shortly. Consultants have also been engaged to manage the recruitment process for the remaining administrative and technical posts.
The Council received a progress report on accommodation matters, which focused on the acquisition of permanent accommodation in Enniskillen, Scariff, Carrick-on-Shannon and Dublin. It is envisaged that the full process from selection of the preferred Enniskillen headquarters option to occupation of the chosen building will be completed by the end of 2003. Separate negotiations for permanent regional offices in Scariff, Carrick-on-Shannon and Dublin are also well advanced. The Council noted that the projected expenditure to the year ending 31 December 2001 is £20·24 million, representing an estimated underspend in 2001 of £3·88 million. That projected underspend was attributed to a combination of delays in staff recruitment and information technology implementation, and reduced capital works on account of planning appeals in the Republic of Ireland.
The Council noted Waterways Ireland’s first annual report covering the period 2 November 1999 to 31 December 2000. The report will be published shortly. The Council approved Waterways Ireland’s operational plan for 2002. It contains specific targets and incorporates the following main objectives: the effective management and operation of the inland navigations for which Waterways Ireland is responsible; the full establishment of the organisation; the starting of work on new headquarters and regional offices; and the implementation of the capital development programme.
The chief executive has undertaken to present the North/South Ministerial Council with a draft corporate plan at the next sectoral meeting. The chief executive provided the Council with an illustrated presentation of the existing inland waterways infrastructure. The Council received a report on the outcome of the recent competition to select a chief executive for Foras na Gaelige. The Council agreed to meet again in sectoral format in March 2002.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: As Committee Chairperson, I express my pleasure at the progress made on the organisational and administrative aspects, and on the project work.
One of the most exciting projects, with far-reaching implications for major tourism development on the island, is the Ulster Canal project. Can the Minister update Members on the progress of that project since the last Council meeting in June?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Member is aware that the two Governments received an updated feasibility study report, and Waterways Ireland’s assessment of it, for detailed consideration at the previous North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting held on 27 June. It is a substantial report with major financial implications, and we have embarked on a comprehensive assessment process.
We all agree that the project is exciting. It has clear financial implications, which means that we faced the difficult challenge of determining how to provide the necessary resources to develop it. An important aspect of the project is the route of the Ulster Canal. It flows through one of the most socially and economically disadvantaged areas, not only in Northern Ireland but in the Irish Republic. There is a strong case to be made with regard to targeting social need that would outweigh any negative impact of a viability study. The project will not stand up to a scrutiny that is concerned purely with pounds and pence or with viability. However, there is a strong argument to be made in favour of the project when the wider benefits are taken into account. We are currently making a detailed assessment of the feasibility study report. We are taking it one stage at a time. I remind the House that work on the section of the Ulster Canal that runs from Lough Neagh could be undertaken reasonably cheaply. We are carefully considering that at present. We could do that work quickly and with minimal cost, and that would indicate our commitment to developing the whole canal. However, it is a major project that will take many years to implement.

Mr David Hilditch: Regarding new works and maintenance programmes, can the Minister assure us that all measures are in place to protect areas of special scientific interest, endangered species, protected breeding grounds and other environmental issues relating to inland waterways and increased cruising?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Those environmental considerations are, of course, important factors for waterways. Looking at the ecosystem around each waterway is vital. For example, a detailed environmental impact assessment of the Ulster Canal will be carried out before a consensus is reached. An environmental scoping operation has already been completed. That applies continuously to all the waterways for which Waterways Ireland is responsible. Waterways Ireland is responsible for the management, maintenance, development and restoration of inland navigable waterways. The Member’s points are well made and are important for the operation of that body.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: My local council, Strabane District Council, recently carried out a feasibility study on the reopening of Strabane Canal, which runs from Strabane, through Donegal, to Derry. I ask the Minister’s Department to assist my constituency in every way to reopen that historic canal and potential major tourist attraction.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am not aware of the details of the Strabane Canal, but I will certainly enquire about it in the Department, to find out what it knows and what are its plans for the canal. Obviously, we have a long way to go with regard to inland waterways and potential navigable waters in Northern Ireland to catch up with the Irish Republic. While the focus is currently on the Ulster Canal and the Lagan navigation, the Strabane Canal undoubtedly merits a closer look.

Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill [NIA1/01] be agreed.
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Molaim go dtugtar a Dhara Céim don Bhille Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Pearsanta (Leasú).
Is é is aidhm don Bhille measardha goirid seo cuidiú breise agus tacaíocht a bhfuil an-ghá leo a sholáthar do chúramóirí. Mar a fógraíodh sa Chlár do Rialtas, tá mo Roinn ag forbairt straitéise do chúramóirí i gcomhar le forais reachtúla éagsúla, eagraíochtaí deonacha agus le cúramóirí iad féin. Tá súil agam go bhfaighidh mé an tuairisc agus na moltaí roimh dheireadh na bliana. Is é is aidhm don straitéis bearta praiticúla a aimsiú a dhéanfaidh difear suntasach i saol cúramóirí. Idir an linn, ceadóidh an Bille seo go gcuirfear tacaíocht ar fáil ar dhóigh nach féidir faoin reachtaíocht reatha.
Eisíodh cáipéis chomhairliúcháin dar teideal ‘Moltaí le haghaidh Bille do Chúramóirí agus Páistí Míchumasacha’ (arbh é bunteideal an Bhille é) i Márta seo chuaigh thart do réimse leathan de pháirtithe leasmhara. Léirigh na freagraí a fuarthas ar an chomhairliúchán fáilte leathan roimh na moltaí, go háirithe ó eagraíochtaí a ionadaíonn cúramóirí.
Tá ról barrthábhachtach ag cúramóirí ag tabhairt aire dóibh siúd atá tinn, faoi mhíchumas, leochaileach nó anbhann. Meastar go bhfuil 250,000 cúramóir anseo agus go bhfuil cúramóir i 18% de theaghlaigh. Gan an cúram forleathan seo, bheadh tacaíocht ó na seirbhísí reachtúla de dhíth ar i bhfad níos mó daoine scothaosta, ar dhaoine anbhanna, tinne nó míchumasacha; agus b’fhéidir go mb’éigean dóibh dul isteach i dteach cónaithe nó altranais nó chun otharlainne.
Féadann an soláthar cúraim a bheith an-strusúil; tagann oícheanta gan chodladh agus tnáitheadh fisiciúil agus mothúchánach in éineacht leis. Más maith linn go leanfaidh cúramóirí ar aghaidh ina ról cúraim caithfimid a chinntiú go bhfuil a fhios acu go bhfuil meas agus urraim orthu agus go bhfuil teacht acu ar thacaíocht ardchaighdeáin, iontaofa, fhreagartha ó na seirbhísí reachtúla agus deonacha. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go mbíonn cúramóirí ábalta roghanna eolacha a dhéanamh maidir le réimse a róil chúraim. Tá sé ríthábhachtach fosta go gcothaíonn siad a sláinte agus a ndea-bhail agus go bhfuil go leor saoirse acu caidrimh, caitheamh aimsire agus gealltanais eile taobh lena bhfreagrachtaí cúraim a chothú. Tá sé riachtanach go mothaíonn cúramóirí go bhfuil siad ar an eolas, go bhfuil siad ullmhaithe agus, más gá, go bhfuil siad oilte ar na tascanna a bhaineann le cúram. Caithfidh siad cead cainte a bheith acu ar conas a sholáthraítear cuidiú; caithfidh siad fios a bheith acu go dtugtar aitheantas dá n-oilteacht mar chúramóirí.
Is féidir le hiontaobhais sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta cuid mhór a dhéanamh cheana féin faoi réir na reachtaíochta cúraim phobail le cur le solúbthacht agus le roghanna cúramóirí; ach tá constaicí reachtúla ann a chuireann cosc orthu soláthar a dhéanamh a rachadh go díreach chun sochair do chúramóirí.
The aim of this relatively short Bill is to provide much-needed additional help and support for carers.
As announced in the Programme for Government, my Department is developing an overall carers’ strategy in consultation with various statutory bodies, voluntary organisations and carers. I expect to receive the report and strategy proposals by the end of the year.
The aim of the strategy is to identify practical matters that will make a real difference to the lives of carers. In the meantime, the Bill will allow support to be provided to carers in a way that is not possible under current legislation. The original title of this Bill was ‘Proposals for a Carers and Disabled Children Bill’, and a consultation document with that title was issued last March to a wide range of interested parties. Responses to the consultation indicated a broad welcome for the proposals, particularly by organisations representing carers.
Carers play a vital role in looking after those who are sick, disabled, vulnerable or frail. It is estimated that there are 250,000 carers here, and that 18% of households in Northern Ireland have a carer. Without them, many more elderly, frail, sick or disabled people would need the support of the statutory services, and might need to enter a residential or nursing home or go into hospital.
Caring can be stressful and can involve sleepless nights and physical and emotional exhaustion. If we want carers to continue in their role we must ensure that they feel valued and that they have access to high- quality, reliable and responsive support from the statutory and voluntary services. It is crucial that carers can make informed choices about the extent of their role. It is also vital that they maintain their own health and well-being and have sufficient freedom to maintain other relationships, interests and commitments alongside their caring responsibilities.
Carers need to feel informed, prepared and, where appropriate, they must be trained for the tasks involved in caring. They must have a say in the way that help is provided and have their expertise recognised. Health and social services trusts can already do much within existing community care legislation to increase flexibility and choice for carers, but legislative obstacles prevent them from making provision that could be of direct benefit to carers.
The way in which the current legislation is cast prevents carers from receiving help in their own right. For example, where a person who needs care has been offered, but has refused, a community care assessment, it is not possible for a trust to assess the carer’s needs, even if that is what the carer wants.
The Bill will give carers a statutory right to
"an assessment of their ability to provide and to continue to provide care for the person cared for."
Under the Bill, health and social services trusts must take into account the results of that assessment when deciding what services need to be provided to the person being cared for and to the carer. For the first time, therefore, trusts will have the power to provide services to a carer directly, and that power will prevail even if the patient cared for has refused an assessment or actual services. The services can be wide-ranging and can include any provision that a trust considers would help the carer to provide care. That might take the form of physical help such as assistance around the house, a mobile phone or other forms of support such as training or counselling.
The Bill includes provision to enable the Department to make regulations that allow health and social services trusts to issue vouchers for short-term breaks for carers. Vouchers will enable the carer to take a break while someone else provides the services for the person cared for. To allow flexibility the regulations will include provision for the vouchers to be expressed either in money or by the delivery of a service for a certain period. That creates flexibility so that the carer can arrange for replacement care in ways and at times that are best suited to his or her needs.
The Bill will also amend the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, giving someone with parental responsibility for a disabled child the same statutory right to an assessment of his or her ability to provide and to continue to provide care for the child. A health and social services trust must take into account the results of that assessment also when deciding what services to provide under the Order. The voucher scheme will allow the carer of a disabled child to take a break also.
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety introduced a direct payment scheme in 1996. Direct payments are cash payments given to persons in lieu of services that would otherwise have been arranged for them by trusts, so that they may arrange the provision of their own services. Direct payments give greater flexibility to service users, allowing them to make arrangements with providers of their choice and at times that are convenient to them. So far, the scheme has covered only those personal social services for adults provided under the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. The Bill will make the scheme available to carers also. Other service users who will be entitled to direct payments following an amendment to the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 include a person with parental responsibility for a disabled child, a disabled person with parental responsibility for a child and a disabled child aged 16 or 17.
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 contain technical and formal provisions relating to the commencement and interpretation of the Bill, and which enable the Department, through the regulations, to make any necessary or consequential provision.
I am sure that Members will have points to raise, and I will try to answer as many of them as possible in my winding-up speech. If there are any points to which I cannot respond, I will write to the Member concerned. The Bill is targeted at improving the well-being and quality of life of those receiving care and of carers, who make sacrifices to care for relatives or friends. I commend it to the Assembly.

Dr Joe Hendron: I apologise for missing the initial part of the Minister’s address. The brevity of the discussion on the statement about the North/South Ministerial Council meeting caught me out.
As Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I welcome the introduction of the Bill, and I look forward to considering it during the Committee Stage. As with all proposals for legislation, the Committee is carrying out its own consultation exercise. Although the legislation was welcomed generally, several points were raised about its implementation. It would be inappropriate of me to mention those in great detail today, but it might be helpful to the Minister if I were to mention some of them briefly.
The Bill proposes to give boards and trusts the power to provide services for carers, but there is no requirement for them to do so. The power to supply services is meaningful only if there are sufficient resources to meet the demand. The Committee will wish to consider this matter carefully. The Department claims that the proposals are broadly cost-neutral, but significant resources may be required to undertake assessments of carers’ needs. Resources will also be needed to finance the extra services that will be required following the assessments. The administration of the direct payments scheme will also add to the cost.
The voucher scheme is to be welcomed, but the availability of sufficient high-quality respite care places is a concern. Before the voucher scheme is introduced, we must be sure that enough places are available, or expectations will be raised that cannot be met.
The general opinion of boards, trusts and interested organisations is that the proposals will not prove to be cost-neutral as the cost of administering the assessment process must be met within existing resources. Current resources do not meet the identified need, so the expectations of carers may be raised at the assessment stage but may not be fulfilled because of financial constraints. The legislation must be backed by adequate finance. Increased workloads without increased funding will lead to cuts in services elsewhere.
The complexity of general and financial accountability, which accompanies the co-ordination of direct payments, would require a change in the structures and an increase in personnel to manage the payments. Uptake for the introduction of direct payments has been low. The Bill does not make any reference to the provision of support services for clients or carers who receive direct payments. An independent living support group might be needed to support carers.
Although the legislation gives the trusts the power to provide service for carers, it does not impose a duty to do so. Carers’ views and their ability to care form an important part of all assessments in social care. When a social service is provided it is done so in agreement with clients and carers. Some trusts feel that the proposal to give them the power to run short-term voucher schemes must be explored in more detail. Pressures in the social care market might limit carers’ and clients’ choice. It is interesting that Mencap Northern Ireland is not sure whether any real change can be achieved by imposing a duty to provide services based on carers’ assessments.
Carers should be offered an assessment of their needs, rather than their having to ask for one. Efforts should be made to ensure that carers are aware of their right to an assessment. The Carers’ National Association (Northern Ireland) says that, since the introduction of ‘Guidance on Carers’ Assessments’ in 1996, experience shows that most carers who are in touch with health and personal social services have not been informed of their right to ask for an assessment. Since the onus is on the carers to ask for an assessment, they do not have a proper opportunity to avail of the provision. This seems to be the real difficulty with the current provisions — even more than the fact that the right to an assessment is based on guidance, rather than statute. Carers and carers’ groups feel that, rather than the onus being on carers to request the assessments, trusts should be required to offer an assessment when they identify someone who is providing, or intending to provide, regular and substantial care.
The Carers’ National Association (Northern Ireland) welcomes the recognition that carers need proper support to undertake their work and continue in their roles. It also welcomes increased access to creative and responsive support services that enable carers to be confident and effective in their roles and maintain a life outside of caring. However, if most carers are to continue to fulfil this function effectively, they will need good-quality, tailor-made services to be delivered to the person being cared for. Most critically, that may include services that enable carers to take short breaks or have respite from caring. It is difficult to envisage a large range or volume of services that would support the carer.
It seems that the proposals for young carers and disabled parents are designed to support young carers as children, rather than carers. The Carers’ National Association (Northern Ireland) wholeheartedly welcomes that approach. Advocacy might be needed to ensure that support is genuinely geared towards freeing young carers up rather than tying them down. It is interesting that the Carers’ National Association (Northern Ireland) feels that it would be valuable for everyone, including the Health Committee, to hear directly from young carers and the organisations that work closely with them in Northern Ireland.
The Children’s Law Centre broadly supports the Bill, but it made several comments on the provision of services to young carers. The Bill is not resource- neutral and must be backed by adequate finance. Ring-fenced budgets are needed to meet the needs of young carers aged 16 and over who would be entitled to an assessment under the proposed Bill, and of young carers who are assessed as being children in need under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The proposal to entitle 16- and 17-year-olds to request a carer’s assessment and to receive direct payments is welcome, and I hope that it will lead to more flexibility and choice for young people. I look forward to discussing those and other matters with my Committee colleagues during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an Bhille seo ón Aire Sláinte agus ba mhaith liom a rá ar dtús go bhfuil géar-ghá leis.
I welcome the Bill. There is a real need for such a Bill, given that successive Government policies have been aimed at reducing the number of people in residential care. One such policy was aimed at improving the quality of life of those who need care by encouraging their families to care for them at home with professional assistance. However, to date, the Government have not provided the necessary assistance to enable carers to provide that support, nor have they properly recognised the enormous commitment and dedication of carers.
We must examine briefly the role of carers, particularly of individuals who care for a family member. Although caring might not involve constant attendance, it is a 24-hour responsibility, which, for those providing long- term care, is ongoing. The state does not give sufficient recognition to their role and their contribution to the welfare of the person whom they care for, nor has it recognised the economic value of those carers to the Health Service. When a person is cared for at home as opposed to a residential institution, the state makes an enormous saving.
I welcome the Bill and its provision of support and training for carers to enable them to continue their good work. I especially welcome — and perhaps the Minister can clarify this issue — the financial assistance to enable those who provide long-term care to take a break. Carers carry a heavy burden, because caring is a 24-hour responsibility that can last for weeks, months or years.
Will the Minister ensure that financial assistance, training and support will be available to all carers and that the system of assessment will be clear and easily understood? When undergoing assessment, carers should not feel that they are being scrutinised, examined, or questioned about their ability. They should be encouraged to avail of the help being provided. Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the start of the debate. I welcome the Bill. It is taken for granted that carers play a vital role looking after those who are sick, disabled, vulnerable or frail. As the Minister has stated, there are over 250,000 carers in Northern Ireland, and 18% of households here contain a carer.
The Bill’s objective is to give a statutory right to a carer’s assessment, and that will enable them to receive adequate payment for caring. This is a change. Many families never got that type of support and depended on the younger members in the family to look after a parent or relative who was disabled or incapable of looking after themselves. Often, children had to look after a person and make sure their needs were attended to before they went to school or could even think about their own needs. That is why it is important that the Bill is passed.
Trusts will have a statutory obligation to carry out assessments, and there will be an onus on them to provide the necessary help for carers. That is why we should support the Bill.
We must recognise that the finances are not something that we can run away from — they must be provided. Training for the carers must also be provided. We must be careful that carers who are in a vulnerable position, especially 16- and 17-year-olds and parents with disabled children, have sufficient training and financial support to enable them to do what they are trying to do.
The short-term voucher scheme will be welcome, but the problem is that there are not enough respite care spaces available. It is all very well to give the carer a break, but if there is nobody to provide cover, or there are no respite care spaces available, it becomes extremely difficult to provide that break. Nevertheless, this is a step in the right direction. I ask the Minister to take on board the fact that there must be some kind of financial compensation given to trusts to enable them to carry out assessments accurately, and with the knowledge that the carer will get the help required. If it is necessary to bring someone in to care for a person on a short-term basis, that is what should happen.
If we get these things into place, and if the Minister and the Committee take responsibility for ensuring that finance and training are available, I welcome the Bill. It will make a big difference to people’s lives. We all are aware of family members who have cared for people without any recompense. Their task has been made much more difficult by what seems to them to be an uncaring health board that was unwilling either to give an assessment or to go along with the terms of an assessment that was given. I am happy to support the Bill, and I look forward to its introduction.

Sir John Gorman: With the death of George Harrison last week I will quote the words of one of the songs he was responsible for
"Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m sixty four?".
For somebody who is 79 that seems a long time away. However, many of my constituents fall into that category, and the number is increasing. As the years go by, there will be a higher proportion of people in their seventies, eighties and nineties, provided that we have people who need them and feed them. Those people are nearly always family members, and the Bill recognises their sacrifices. It would be churlish and lacking in understanding were we not to support the Bill and its motivation.
Many people in my constituency worry about having to sell their homes in order to provide funding for commercial care. That is an enormous problem. I understand why people who struggle to pay their mortgages and support their families resent that owners of a valuable asset, in the form of a home, do not necessarily fund their own care. It is politically impossible to accept that funding should be given under those circumstances, but perhaps a compromise could be reached, one that represents good value and the wishes of elderly people and their families and allows them to stay in their own homes for as long as possible. The provision of assistance could prove advantageous for the families, the old people and, indeed, society.
I do not have a magic answer as to how that could be achieved, however, perhaps an understanding of its concept, which is demonstrated so well in the Bill, could be developed to the greatest degree possible. Thank you.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I thank the Members for the interest shown in the debate. I was delighted to hear that the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety will discuss at Committee Stage the important points that were raised by Dr Hendron. In the past, I have been grateful to the Committee for its assistance in bringing forward legislation.
The Department will publicise widely the right to a carer’s assessment and will make carers aware of their rights. That is important.
Sir John Gorman raised the issue of nursing care. I shall introduce legislation in the future regarding nursing care, so I shall answer his question then. Following the Budget announcement, free nursing care will be available once the legislation is in place.
Mr McNamee raised the issue of recognition of the role that carers perform. The Bill goes some way towards recognising that role. I was happy to make that point this morning; it is important that such a point be made. We specifically sought to give recognition to the important role of carers by enshrining their right to an assessment in law.
The carers strategy, which is being developed in full consultation with carers and their representative organisations, will seek to make a practical difference to their lives by putting in place some of the support structures that they need. In the context of that developing strategy and the proposals that I hope to have brought forward to me by the end of the year, we will look at many of the other resource questions raised by the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Dr Hendron, and Mrs Courtney.
On the issue of young carers, it is important that young people are not faced with such responsibility for the provision of care that their own welfare is prejudiced. Trusts need to ensure that the person cared for is receiving sufficient services so that no one aged under 18 is undertaking a regular and substantial caring role that adversely affects his general welfare. Services should be provided to parents to enhance their ability to fulfil their parental responsibilities. Existing departmental guidance on the assessment of need under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 draws attention to the needs of young carers. Guidance that will be prepared under this legislation will reinforce this important point.
Mrs Courtney also raised the question of respite care spaces. Before the voucher scheme is introduced, we will consult further on the type of respite care needed. Not all of this will be residential, because carers also need access to short-term and emergency respite care. This will be addressed. People will be made aware that this is happening before the vouchers are brought forward. It is important that people know what is available.
In relation to the imposing of duties on trusts, the resources will always be finite, and they must be prioritised toward those whose needs are greatest. It is important to know that if there is no similar duty on trusts for other services, it would be difficult to bring that forward here in this respect.
I hope that that covers the variety of the points that Members raised today. If I have missed any points, I will write to the Member afterwards.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill (NIA 1/01) be agreed.

Industrial Development Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: As Members are aware, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, is currently in China on ministerial business. He has written to advise me that in his absence the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Mr Michael McGimpsey, has agreed to represent him during the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill.
No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. However, two Members have indicated a wish to speak to schedule 1. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the eight clauses, followed by schedule 1, then schedules 2 to 4 and finally the long title.
Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1(Invest Northern Ireland)
Question proposed,

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I am concerned about appointments to Invest Northern Ireland, the agency that is being set up under the Bill. Last week it was reported in ‘The Irish Times’ that the posts of director of business international and director of corporate services for Invest Northern Ireland would not be publicly advertised. Equality Commission guidelines state that all new posts should be advertised as widely as possible and should be subject to open competition. This is a matter of serious concern and disappointment.
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE Regulations), which cover the protection of contracts with transferred employees, has been cited by the Department as justification for not advertising these posts. Although we all support workers’ rights, TUPE Regulations should not be used to sidestep equality obligations. No doubt the Department has checked out the legal position and will be able to say that the law has not been broken. However, we must move away from a minimalist position and attitude, and remember that we are leaders in society. The Assembly and Government Departments need to set and maintain the highest standards. Is this the new beginning that we were all promised? What message is being sent out? Fair employment and equality issues have been at the centre of politics, and indeed at the centre of the political conflict in the North of Ireland, for a long time. Those issues have been central to the make-up, activities and policies of the development agencies, particularly the IDB and LEDU. What does the Department do? It simply continues on in the same old failed ways of the past. That is not good enough.
Invest Northern Ireland will play a central role in industrial development in the future, and it is crucial that we start with a clean slate and get the structures right from the beginning. Equality obligations and the need for openness and accountability have been the subject of numerous discussions with the Minister and with departmental officials. They are all well aware of the concerns of Members on this issue. It appears that those concerns have once again been ignored, and instead we are being given empty promises and empty rhetoric on the issues of equality, fairness, openness and accountability.
I urge the Minister and the Department to rethink the matter and to open up these two posts to open competition as obliged by the Equality Commission guidelines and section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Jim Wells: Mr Speaker, it amuses me that every time you call for Ayes and Noes, you seem to look over here for the Noes. I do not know why that is. Almost subconsciously, you look over at these Benches.

Mr Speaker: It is a matter of habit.

Mr Jim Wells: I do not oppose this important Bill. We have had several opportunities to discuss the amalgamation of the industrial promotion agencies. All parties in the House have given the matter their full support and wish it every success. The sooner the legislation is passed, the better. Anything that the House can do to encourage that should be taken on board.
The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has already met with the new board. However, Committee members have not yet met with the chief executive designate, Mr Morrison, and we look forward to that. I am concerned about the make-up of the board. I am surprised that of the eight members who have been appointed so far, only one is a woman — and a very capable woman at that. The reason we were given was that there had been very few applications from women. I subsequently discovered that at least one very capable woman from my constituency of South Down had applied, and I am surprised that people of her calibre were not considered.
I am also concerned that there is an urban bias in the make-up of the board. I hope that this is a temporary hiatus, and that when new members are appointed an attempt will be made to spread the positions around the Province. We still have this "the world ends at Glengormley" syndrome, or if we are feeling really adventurous, the world ends at Dunmurry. Many might believe that to be true, but there is much talent in rural Northern Ireland.
I would like to see people from Fermanagh, north Antrim or south Down being considered for appointment to this board. I am concerned that the great and the good and the usual suspects will be appointed, and much of the talent that is out there will not be harnessed. I urge the Department, when it considers the additional appointments, to try to ensure a spread.
Apart from that one concern, this is very good news for industrial promotion in Northern Ireland. It is long overdue, and the sooner it is implemented the better.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: In common with Dr O’Hagan and Mr Wells, I want to see Invest Northern Ireland up and running and functioning at full speed. We need it badly, and we need it yesterday. In the light of the events of 11 September, we need to redouble our efforts on jobs.
I share the concerns about directors or key executives being appointed without public advertisement. While we must protect jobs, and while the acting director of IDB and the chief executive of LEDU are very worthy and capable people who perhaps deserve the jobs, it would have been better if the appointments had been made after a process of public advertisement.
I am also concerned about the ability of civil servants to join Invest Northern Ireland and then change their minds two or three years later. That might not be in the best interest of Invest Northern Ireland. It might create a situation of instability that would last three or four years. We should be looking to the long term, and trying to ensure that the people who take the jobs today will stay in them as long as they have a contribution to make.
Like Mr Wells, I am concerned about the membership of the board of Invest Northern Ireland. I do not wish to show disrespect to the very worthy people who have already been appointed, but we need to ensure that the very best and most able people in Northern Ireland, or indeed elsewhere, are on that board to make sure that it can engage in business development at a world-class level. If we miss that opportunity, Invest Northern Ireland may not function in top gear. I urge those responsible to appoint to the board the best people available to ensure that the organisation hits the ground at full throttle in April 2002.

Mr Speaker: Before calling the Minister to do the winding-up, I remind Members that they are here to debate the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill, not its implementation. The Minister may wish to respond to some of the matters that have been raised about implementation, but that is not the main purpose of today’s debate.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: On behalf of Sir Reg Empey, I welcome the remarks made by Dr McDonnell and Mr Wells on the concept of a single agency and the important role that it will play in ensuring the future well-being of Northern Ireland. The specific issue that Dr McDonnell, Mr Wells and Dr O’Hagan raised is a matter for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, of which Dr O’Hagan is a member, has already acknowledged that. Sir Reg Empey informed the Assembly during last week’s Consideration Stage that he had referred the correspondence he had received on the matter to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for consideration. I have no further comment to make on that, other than to say that this is not a case of empty rhetoric and empty promises. This is about everyone doing their best to fulfil certain principles of openness and transparency.
As far as equality and fair employment are concerned, all staff are treated in accordance with employment law.
The Department and the Minister have referred one issue to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. When the Minister gets consideration from that Office he will discuss it with the Members concerned.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedules 2 to 4 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Industrial Development Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Threshold Assessment (NI)

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I beg to move
That this Assembly believes that the threshold assessment (Northern Ireland) does not give equality to all members of the teaching profession.
I shall set the scene by quoting from ‘Threshold Northern Ireland’. It states that
"Threshold Northern Ireland sets teachers eligible for threshold assessment a new challenge, but it also offers them a new opportunity."
"It is designed to raise the status and professionalism of teachers."
"Threshold assessment in Northern Ireland should give recognition to the high calibre of Northern Ireland teachers."
It further states that
"Threshold assessments in Northern Ireland should promote equality of opportunity throughout the profession".
Those are quotations from the document, but I shall illustrate that none of those statements stand.
I am sure that all Members would agree that the following remarks by teachers sum up the profession. The teaching profession is charged with the education of all our young people to carve them into citizens of the twenty-first century and the demands that society will put on them. It is recognised by us all that teaching is by its very nature a vocation. Teachers in schools are vital contributors to the future. A male teacher said that
"A teacher affects eternity. He can never tell where his influence stops",
while a female teacher said:
"I touch the future. I teach."
That is all very well until one sees how the threshold assessment discriminates against young teachers and does not give them equal opportunity.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair).
To be eligible for the threshold allowance, teachers must be on point 9 of the pay scale for experience and qualifications before or on 1 September 1999. That assumes that long service equals quality teaching. All Members know that that is not always the case. Young teachers who are newly qualified or have up to six years’ experience are not eligible for the threshold allowance. The Government have launched a highly publicised campaign to draw graduates into the teaching profession and to attract more male teachers into primary schools. However, the Government then introduce a threshold allowance for which those teachers cannot qualify because they do not have enough experience.
The threshold assessment (Northern Ireland) does not give young teachers the opportunity to apply for the salary uplift. Graduates are being encouraged to join the teaching profession, only to be told that they are too young — that is a nonsense. We need to decide what we want from young teachers. Everyone knows young teachers who are well qualified, and that their inexperience does not inhibit them from being good teachers. That must be recognised, yet it is not.
Some young teachers are studying for professional qualifications so that they can become head teachers. That means that they will be the future leaders of our schools. Despite that, they are told that they cannot be rewarded under the threshold assessment. Young teachers’ pursuit of further qualifications shows their commitment. They return to university to obtain diplomas in education or masters degrees, in their own time and at their own expense, because they want to enhance their qualifications. Such people, who are hungry for further educational awards, are being told that they do not qualify for the threshold allowance. This is disappointing to young teachers and has the potential to demotivate them.
We must recognise that the assessment also affects principals and vice-principals, who are not entitled to a threshold payment even though they assess other teachers. A decision by them that a teacher is not eligible for the threshold payment can be overruled by an external verifier. We are paying such verifiers £240 per day to decide whether to pay teachers £2000. We must recognise those points. The reason that I raised the issue of young teachers rather than that of principals and vice-principals — and most people would agree with me — is that the latter case has been well argued. Principals and vice-principals should receive the payment also. We have not focused on young teachers, and we must do so.
As regards redundancy, teachers who reached point 9 by 1 September 1999 can take a redundancy package or qualify for the threshold payment. A long-term substitute teacher can qualify for the payment, but a young teacher cannot. That does not make any sense, and there is no equality of opportunity.
Teachers who have accepted redundancies or who have been substitute teachers for a long time were assessed according to their length of service. It was not about the quality of their teaching, as mentioned in the quotations that I cited from ‘Threshold Northern Ireland’ earlier. The length of time that a teacher is in a job suggests nothing other than a commitment to that job. One person is not necessarily better than another because he has been in his job longer. We have to examine the matter from the young teachers’ perspective and consider why we use this type of assessment.
Four core standards have to be met: core values, understanding of the curriculum and professional knowledge; teaching and assessment of learning; contribution to raising standards through pupil achievement; and effective professional development. When teachers qualify, they sign up to the Jordanstown agreement, irrespective of their age, and each of the core standards is written into that agreement. Therefore, when a newly qualified teacher signs up to the agreement he is effectively stating what he wants to achieve. He has decided to teach in order to achieve those four standards. However, when it comes to giving someone a threshold payment, a teacher is told that because he had not reached point 9 on the salary scale on 1 September 1999 he is not eligible. Once again, this is about length of service; it is not about quality of teaching.
There is the feeling that some perverse judgement is taking place. The Regional Training Unit is seen as having set up the scheme to acknowledge length of service by teachers. Once a person qualifies as a teacher and goes to a school, he signs up to the Jordanstown agreement, which incorporates the four standards.
I want to return to principals and vice-principals, as I know there are several of them in the Chamber. In smaller schools, the wages of a senior teacher can be very close to those of the vice-principal or principal — the difference can be only £200 per annum. It is a disgrace, particularly given the duties and responsibilities of vice-principals and principals. That nonsense must be changed. There is no justice, equality, or opportunity for vice-principals and principals. To add insult to injury, a principal’s assessment of applications for threshold payments can be overruled by someone who is paid £240 a day to carry out assessments. We need to value the leaders in our schools — the principals and vice- principals. They are there because of their qualifications and experience. They have shown that they are good teachers and have gone on to become leaders in the schools. We must recognise that by recompensing them appropriately.
Boards of governors, who have the responsibility for managing schools, have no authority in relation to the threshold assessment. They are not asked for their opinions, nor are they allowed to give them. This is a dichotomy, and it raises the question of where the money will come from for future assessments. The Department of Education is funding threshold payments and will continue to do so for a two-year pilot period. After that we do not know will happen.
People are concerned that schools are being run on local management of schools (LMS) budgets — and I know that the Minister is examining that aspect at the moment. However, many schools are strained, and it would be unthinkable to fund threshold payments from LMS funding. Two difficulties would result: first, that of teachers making other teachers redundant, secondly, in many cases the redundancies would be those of young, vibrant professionals who were not eligible for the threshold payment.
I ask the Minister and the Department to deal with the problems so as to recognise the value of the young people who are being educated in our schools and universities to be teachers and leaders. It is a case of denying them £2000 because they were not at point 9 on the scale by September 1999. It is a disgrace that we are not looking at the quality of teachers but simply saying whether they are experienced enough.

Mr Gerry McHugh: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all and replace with
"That this Assembly acknowledges the serious concerns surrounding threshold assessment, including equality, and urges the representatives of the teachers and employers to review all aspects of it."
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister of Education has tendered his apologies for his absence. It was his intention to be present for the debate at the time listed, which was 2.00 pm. He hopes to attend, but if he cannot he will read Hansard and will answer Members’ points in writing.
In moving the amendment I was endeavouring to highlight the need to deal with the problem facing young teachers. Billy Hutchinson covered many of the points. It is important that those who negotiated to reach this position should take another look at what we are being told by young teachers who feel that they will not receive equality of treatment. They want to know what they should do, and what will happen in a couple of years’ time. I would like a review of the matter soon. Talking about the situation might help, but it may not be enough to assist those who have been speaking to us and who wish to be heard.
The current threshold arrangements were agreed last January by the teachers salaries and conditions of service negotiating committee. No doubt, teachers looked forward to a significant pay rise after years of erosion of their salaries. However, several teachers have expressed serious concerns about the agreed threshold arrangement.
Teachers pointed out that the completion of the application form added another bureaucratic task to their considerable workload. In addition, new teachers receive no incentive for the first eight years of their career. Some regard the threshold as a form of performance related pay. That is a dangerous road to go down, because teachers’ results depend upon a wide variety of factors, including pupils’ social and educational needs at the start of the period under examination, the circumstances of the school and the neighbourhood.
The Department of Education has yet to publish its views on educational added value, which would be useful as a means of measuring the true educational performance of a given school.
Another fear that teachers expressed about the threshold arrangements was the prospect that a quota to limit the number of teachers who would be eligible for the payment might be introduced. They feared that that would lead to jealousy and destroy team spirit in schools. We know how essential it is that teachers work together. Gone are the days when a teacher worked alone in the classroom.
Finally, teachers said that they needed to carry out much more research on the issue, and that the Department should examine where the money would come from to meet the needs of younger teachers, who might otherwise be put off the idea of working at a school at all. We do not want to affect those entering a profession that has such important outcomes. Education influences everything from industry to pupils’ well-being and ability to survive in life. Therefore, teachers’ jobs are of prime importance.
We have been examining the LMS system in the context of the overall schools’ budget. At present, the schools’ budget is a so-called flexible budget. However, no matter how flexible it is, the budget comes from the block grant, and it is inadequate. Considerable top-slicing occurs before the funding reaches us. It is a question of money and then value for money.
Members who are on the Committee, or who have an interest in education, must examine the issue from the point of view of the pupils, in particular, and parents and teachers. Delivery in the classroom is of prime importance. It will not happen if teachers are under pressure, if they are jealous of one another or if principals are given total power. The relationship between a teacher and a principal for seven or eight years is crucial, and its failure will have an impact on individual teachers. Many teachers have told me that that is a dangerous road to go down.
We spoke to officials in Scotland about their budgetary provision. Scotland’s system for delivering the budget seems to be more in keeping with the needs of the schools and teachers than Northern Ireland’s. School principals in Scotland seem to be happy with the arrangements, and the money is ring-fenced. Their whole budget process seems to be much better than ours. Every teacher should be paid on an equal basis. Young teachers feel that they are equal to those who have been teaching for some length of time. They should not have to face the difficulties of keeping things together for eight years until a decision is made about whether they have the right to an extra £2,000. Teachers, and young teachers in particular, will be going through a time of considerable change after the replacement of the 11-plus. Teachers’ pay is one thing that they like to be able to rely on, at all ages. They like to know what the outcome will be.
I introduced the amendment to take the Assembly to a point at which we can review the situation. I take into account the fact that the negotiating bodies — the management and the unions — are best placed to decide their own future. However, the interest of the House is the need to look at the matter from the point of view of those teachers who are being neglected at present.

Mr Ken Robinson: I am unsure as to whether I should declare an interest. I was once a principal, but I was once a young teacher as well.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Did you get any threshold pay?

Mr Ken Robinson: I did not. I remember starting off as a young teacher in a school in the north of the city. I was envious of a senior member of staff who was paid the wonderful sum of £1,400. He was at the top end of the scale. I was paid just £42 per month. In those days there was no talk of threshold payments.
I have taken many of Billy Hutchinson’s points on board. Young teachers are the lifeblood of schools. With the current LMS arrangements that Mr McHugh referred to, the possibility of recruiting and retaining young teachers is diminishing every year. Young teachers have the opportunity to influence people far beyond the walls of the school. However, the benefits of that to the profession, and to education, are being minimised each year.
Young teachers bring several benefits to a school. They are invariably the staff members who are involved in games, who take the children away on trips, who stay behind to ensure that the school choir is on song for Christmas, who work night and day, and who cut up pieces of cloth and turn out those wonderful angels that we see in Nativity plays at this time of the year. They do it because they are committed to their profession. At that point in their careers they are full of enthusiasm and do not seek rewards.
As they grow older, however, marriage and other factors intervene. They have responsibilities. They need money in order to bring home the bacon. Money, therefore, becomes important. I sympathise with what Billy Hutchinson is suggesting. Young teachers do need some financial reward. However, I am not sure what the purpose of introducing threshold payments really is. Is its purpose to retain staff in schools? Older teachers get tired, but they bring experience to schools, and schools need to retain that experience, to blend the enthusiasm of young teachers with the experience of older teachers. Is it to reward staff for outstanding accomplishments, for moving through a threshold, as it were?
My understanding of the threshold was that when teachers reached point 9 — the top of their scale — they then had to apply to move through the threshold. They would then be assessed on whether they bring something extra to the school. If that assessment were positive, they would then be rewarded at that scale. I am not sure that that is the perfect way to reward either the enthusiasm or the expertise of those who have reached point 9 and the threshold.
The assessment has brought to teachers’ attention what other teachers are earning. Members of a team, therefore, start looking around and wondering how much their colleagues are getting paid and whether they are earning less themselves. The old green-eyed monster starts to prey. That is not good for education.
Principals and vice-principals are taking on an ever- increasing role. They have held the education system together for the past 15 years. Many of them have grown weary of that task and have retired. Some of them are fortunate enough to still be alive, despite the awful toll on their health. That has not been recognised by the introduction of threshold payments. The differential between the salary of a senior teacher on point 9 of the scale, who then moves on to a threshold payment, and a vice-principal or, in many cases, a principal is minuscule. The outcome — whether it was perceived or not — is that principals and vice-principals are asking themselves if the extra work is worth it and if it is appreciated.
Principals are vital in assessing teachers who are moving through the threshold. Again, they are put in an invidious position. The threshold assessment was badly thought out. I do not know its real purpose, but the outcome has been to cause further dissension in the teaching profession and in schools. That is the last thing that we want.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I will start by stating the obvious: education is a vital element in society, coming close in importance to food and shelter. It is a basic human right. I do not need to tell the House of the key role of education in the development of young members of society. It is second in influence only to the family and the values that are taught there.
Teachers are an intrinsic part of the education system and, as such, are entitled to equality. The threshold assessment exercise most definitely does not provide equality for all members of the teaching profession. It is yet another example of the Department of Education applying English solutions to Northern Irish problems. Education in Northern Ireland is very different to that in England.
The teaching force here is of the highest quality. For example, an entrant to a higher education institution for teachers in Northern Ireland requires 21 points at A level, while the English entrants require 13 points. Teachers here are highly trained and motivated. The slavish duplication of English solutions to English problems merely exacerbates the position of teachers here, yet the Department of Education argues that it must maintain parity of teachers’ pay here with England and Wales.
There should be financial parity. Northern Ireland should be given the equivalent resources on a pro rata basis. Surely, the whole point of devolution is that we have the wit and intelligence to spend resources better without sacrificing the "parity at least" principle that is espoused by the Northern Ireland Teachers’ Council.
How do teachers reach the threshold assessment? Over 8,000 teachers have been denied access to the upper range or the so-called threshold assessment during their first seven years in the profession. The threshold assessment is supposed to be about the quality of teaching and learning experience that is provided by the teacher. What magical manifestation deprived teachers in the first seven years of their teaching career from crossing the threshold? The exclusion of 8,000 young teachers from the threshold assessment is an affront to equality, decency and justice. On that basis alone, the Assembly should pass this motion.
Other Members said that the introduction of the threshold assessment in Northern Ireland has also led to a major increase in workload and bureaucracy, not just for teachers, but also for principals. The Department for Education and Skills, in its evidence to the School Teachers’ Review Body, stated that an average teacher must spend 20 hours completing a threshold application form and gathering evidence in support of it. Principals must then read all the applications and make critical judgements that can quite easily jeopardise the industrial relations in their school if they get them wrong.
The training of principals in a large one-day seminar was plainly inadequate for the task. The process was, and is, bureaucratic. As Billy Hutchinson said, it is expensive both in teaching time and resources. It has succeeded in lowering the morale of teachers in Northern Ireland. That, in our awful circumstances, is a unique achievement.
In previous responses to my questions, the Minister of Education has confirmed that the bureaucracy of the threshold process will cost £1 million. Fifty-three assessors have been employed — mostly retired principals and education and pension administrators — to gainsay the professional judgements of principal teachers. Given the need in our school system for the professional development of all our teachers, the long delays in attending to the maintenance of the school building estate, and the current reliance on public-private partnerships to resolve the crisis in school capital building, is that expenditure not excessive?
12.00
The introduction of threshold payments erodes the differentials between the pay of principals and vice- principals and that of teachers. That was not difficult to foresee. One wonders about the judgement of the Department of Education and the employing authorities if they did not realise that the erosion of differentials would cause serious problems with principals and vice-principals.
That unnecessary problem is caused by the slavish adherence to parity with England. The English school system is in crisis, with a massive shortage of teachers and of applications for vacant principal posts. Why is our Department of Education not thinking smart, thinking differently and creating an environment in the Northern Ireland school system that does not replicate the manifest failures in the English system?
In June 2001 the Assembly’s Education Committee endorsed the Northern Ireland Teachers’ Council’s claim for an independent inquiry into teachers’ salaries and conditions of service. A similar inquiry was approved by the Scottish Executive to cover teachers in Scotland. I am dismayed to learn, from reports provided by teachers’ union representatives, that employers on the management side have been dismissive of the determination of the Assembly Education Committee. At best, that perspective represents naivety. Demonstrably, threshold assessment does not provide equality for the Northern Ireland teaching profession.
I stand by the Education Committee’s determination for an independent inquiry into teachers’ salaries and conditions of service. That is the best route, rather than to review the inequality of the threshold assessment. I support the motion.

Mr Tom Hamilton: I will not take too long because much has already been said and very eloquently put. There is, however, one matter to which I wish to draw attention. Ms Lewsley made reference to the shortage of principals and vice-principals in England. There is already a shortage of principals and vice-principals here in Northern Ireland. I know of many schools which have advertised for principals but have received very few applications. In some cases, no applications were received.
That shortage may be made worse by the threshold payment. If a senior teacher were earning more — or only a few hundred pounds less — than many vice- principals, a case would arise where many such senior teachers, who logically would wish to progress to vice-principal or possibly principal posts, may well wonder what is the point in progressing. What is the point of their taking on extra responsibility and an extra workload if they are going to be financially worse off than they are now, or perhaps only a few hundred pounds better off? If the situation is allowed to worsen, there is a danger that the filling of vice-principal and principal positions will become even more difficult than it is already. Many members of the teaching profession at that end of the scale are already reluctant to take on the extra workload associated with vice-principal and principal posts.
In reference to Billy Hutchinson’s remarks, younger teachers have not approached me about threshold payments. However, many senior teachers have approached me, and next week I will meet with three or four principals and vice-principals from the Strangford area who wish to express concern about their salaries being eroded by the introduction of threshold payments.
Members must take the matter seriously, because teaching is the core element that provides the next generation with an education. I commend Billy Hutchinson for bringing the matter to the House.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The motion states that there is concern about equality in the teaching profession. A Green Paper, ‘Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change’, was introduced in England three years ago. At that time, over 197,000 teachers applied for threshold payments. Concern was expressed, and the National Union of Teachers mounted a legal challenge to the process. The matter was reviewed, and it was only in November 2000 that threshold payments became a reality.
The main objective of threshold payments is to contribute to the overall process of improving the quality of teaching and learning in schools — to use an anachronism, to improve teacher performance at the chalkface. A broad view was, therefore, taken that those teachers who could improve the quality of education should receive rewards.
As other Members have said, it is normal to reward teachers with posts of responsibility. That usually means that a teacher is appointed head of department, or he or she is given the responsibility of an extra-curricular activity. However, threshold payments would reward directly those teachers who are extremely good at their actual teaching duties. In other words, the payments would reward those teachers who could improve outcomes for their pupils. Billy Hutchinson rightly pointed out the core values that currently exist. They are the common core values that one would expect of any teacher.
The application of the process is causing some concern. Under LMS, all money is given directly to a school and is allocated by the board of governors. That includes the payment of teachers’ salaries. Currently, the Department of Education excludes threshold money from that allocation. It makes the threshold payment of £2,001 directly to the eligible teachers. There is concern about how that will be handled in the future. Is it possible that threshold money could be included in the LMS budget, thereby limiting the ability of small schools, within their LMS budget, to reward those teachers who perform more than adequately?
Doubts have rightly been expressed about the assessment process. The Department issued a warning recently that
"all individuals involved in the assessment process must not act unfairly to any individual and, in particular, must not unlawfully discriminate on the grounds of a person’s sex, marital status, race or disability. Part-time staff should not be treated less favourably than a member of staff working full-time".
The application has caused some concern. Last year, the teaching unions agreed on the method. It is timely, one year later, for the House to point out that concern to the unions and make it a matter for public discussion. I worked in the teaching system. There was always one young, energetic and genuine teacher who had the ambition to strive to improve his professional standards. Having to wait to reach point 9 of the teaching scale can thwart teachers who have the ambition to be excellent in their field. I ask the unions, the Minister and the Department to examine the concept of the threshold point for consideration for that award.
I thank Billy Hutchinson for bringing the matter to our attention. It is worthy of discussion, and anything that can be done to enhance the position of those teachers who deliver levels of excellence well above the norm should be supported. Such teachers should be properly rewarded. We must take note of the matter and ask the unions, the Department and the Minister to look again for the inequalities, or the deficiencies, that arise in any new introduction. Those must be ironed out as quickly as possible to give the profession every chance in the future.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I support the motion. There has always been a dilemma in the teaching profession as to how to recognise competence among its members. The old system of promotional points had many unsavoury qualities, not least of which was that it often set one colleague against another — it introduced the green-eyed monster that has already been referred to. If someone wanted to achieve promotion they could do so only by taking on more and more administrative duties. The result was that good classroom teachers were often not in the classroom — they were administrators, which was not why they had become professional teachers. After education had suffered the ravages of Thatcherism, many teachers were doing the work of a civil servant rather than the work of a teacher.
However, not all good classroom teachers were rewarded thus. Many teachers complained that there was always an opportunity for the professional, educational whizz-kids to zoom up the promotional ladder because of their ability to sell themselves well in interviews. Quite often, good teachers who did not have those particular skills, or who perhaps were not even interested in them, remained in the low bands of the scale and never got the recognition that many people felt that they were due.
That kind of situation gave rise to the examination of the whole area and the attempt to introduce threshold payments. The Westminster Green Paper which led to all of this stated that the teachers in the classroom were to be placed at the heart of the salary structure by ensuring that the vital importance of their work, as opposed to all the other activities in school, was properly reflected in salary terms.
That system has created considerable problems and, in many cases, has not solved the problems identified with the old system. From my long experience in teaching and in school management, I believe that to ask already hard-pressed principals and vice-principals to adjudicate in that way creates a serious problem and places a heavy burden on teachers. I note that, towards the end of October, some 232 schools had been through the system, and only 10 of those applications were rejected. I am surprised that the figure is even 10 — I would have thought that none would have been rejected as most principals and vice-principals would have been careful not to create problems with staff and morale. I am even more surprised and concerned that many schools must find the money for those already agreed threshold arrangements out of their own budgets. The boards do not, as yet, provide that money. I understand — and I am subject to correction — that the Department has not provided the boards with the funds to supply schools with the budget required to make the necessary adjustment. My information is that that situation is widespread, and it requires immediate attention.
There has also been much concern about the amount and quality of training available to those carrying out the assessment. If the current system continues – and I fear that we must endure it for some time — it should be our top priority to ensure that all those involved are properly trained.
An additional problem has emerged with regard to the backdating of teachers’ salaries, in some cases, to September 2000 — the supply of money required to reinforce the LMS budget. Some teachers will also experience tax problems as a result of moving from one tax bracket to another because of excessive back pay. That problem should be more sensibly and sympathetically dealt with.
Members have already mentioned the differential that occurs between principals and vice-principals and the rest of the staff. In some cases that differential is unprotected under the new threshold arrangement. The Department must move to protect it.
The final problem, which has been well covered already by quite a few teachers, is the equality issue — particularly the problem about young teachers articulated by Billy Hutchinson at the outset. There is no doubt that we need a system, and the only credible way to do it is by the creation of a salary scale, high enough to attract able young people into the profession, which progressively rewards teachers as they move on in their professional career. I am not making it a big demand, but I am really concerned about the uncertainty that faces professional teachers. A clear system would remove that, leaving people able to get on with their job of teaching and not being constantly concerned about fighting with each other and worrying about the promotion ladder. In no uncertain terms, this must mean that once teachers have manifestly shown their competence, they can move forward on a clear promotion ladder.
There are things about the amendment that are reasonable, but I am supporting the motion. The amendment detracts from the main impetus of the motion, and I want to be with the motion in this debate. As has already been pointed out, the present system has not been well enough thought out. It causes dissent and is already demotivating teachers. As Ms Lewsley said, it is not particularly applicable to teaching in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Minister will re-engage with the unions, as he has either started to or is about to, in their call for an independent inquiry into teachers’ pay and working hours. Through that we might get a system for teachers in Northern Ireland that could satisfy us — well, maybe not everybody, knowing teachers as I do. It could gain the greatest degree of satisfaction among the teaching profession, and remove this demotivating series of problems from the profession.

Sir John Gorman: Luckily, the Minister was able to speed up and arrive three hours sooner than he expected.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I apologise to the House and to Billy Hutchinson for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I was on my way to an important event in a school in north Belfast when I was told that this had been brought forward. Unfortunately, quite a few people are waiting for me in north Belfast, and I will go there as soon as this is finished.
Equality is a central tenet of the Good Friday Agreement, and as Minister of Education I am fully committed to ensuring that my Department’s policies and actions promote equality for all our citizens. In taking forward my Department’s responsibilities for the education of our children, I am determined to provide all our children with the best possible education — one that, in all respects, equips them to be citizens of the future. Raising standards in all schools is one of my key objectives, and I am taking forward a range of initiatives with that aim firmly in sight. This includes capital investment in our schools — including investment in information and communications technology — and the school improvement programme. That programme is designed to raise standards in all schools. It addresses issues such as literacy and numeracy, discipline, target setting, school development, planning, low achievement and underachievement, the massive expansion of pre-school education and the three major reviews of aspects of our education system — the post-primary review, the curriculum review and the consultation on LMS commonality.
Of course, investment in educational resources for the purpose of raising standards counts for little without highly skilled and motivated teachers. It is for that reason that I place great importance on our ongoing work to maintain and enhance the quality of teaching.
Teachers are the key to good education, and we are particularly fortunate in the quality of our teaching force. I have met many teachers in my position as Minister of Education, and I have been impressed constantly with their professionalism and dedication. Teachers should have a career and salary structure which recognises their skill and commitment, encourages their professional development and offers a tangible reward for their achievements.
The pay award negotiated in January 2001 by the teachers’ salaries negotiating committee put in place a new salary structure. This was not imposed by me or by my Department. It was achieved through discussion and agreement with representatives from the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Governing Bodies Association, the Council for Integrated Education and the five accredited teaching unions. It is applied irrespective of religion, race or gender and in all schools — special, nursery and primary, secondary and grammar, controlled and maintained, integrated and Irish-medium.
The new structure is intended to complement the professional development of teachers and to give them the opportunity to advance their careers while remaining in the classroom. New teachers are required to complete an induction period of one year and two years early professional development. Following that they are encouraged to avail of continuing professional development opportunities.
The professional development of younger teachers is complemented by annual progression on the main salary scale, until the maximum is reached, usually after seven years. The introduction of threshold assessment allows those teachers to progress to a new upper salary scale, giving them an immediate annual increase from September 2000 — £2,076 from 1 April 2001 — with opportunities for further progression.
Before moving from the top of the nine-point main scale to the new upper salary scale, teachers must demonstrate that they have developed the competences required to become a teacher in the first place, so, in a sense, it is a standard of competence which is derived directly from the initial teacher training competences.
Threshold assessment is available to all teachers who have been at the top of the main salary scale for one year, based on their qualifications and experience. Those who apply must meet the four agreed threshold standards and produce practical evidence to show that they have met those standards for the past two or three years. The standards are core values — understanding of the curriculum, professional knowledge, teaching in assessment of learning, contribution to raising standards through pupil achievement and effective professional development. It is important that these standards are applied consistently and fairly and that the scheme is transparent, which is why the assessments are validated by external accredited assessors. Unsuccessful applicants receive feedback to help their professional development, and they have a right of appeal.
The assessors have been trained and accredited by the regional training unit (RTU). That unit also provided training for principals, who then trained the teachers in their schools. In most schools training was completed before the end of the summer term, and completed application forms had to be submitted to the principal by the end of September. Assessments by principals are now completed, and the external validation is under way. Several schools have already completed the assessment process, and many successful teachers have now received their increases, which were backdated to September 2000.
The assessment process for the first cohort of applications is expected to be concluded by Christmas. More than 13,000 of the 20,000 teachers here were eligible to apply in the first round, and almost all of them have done so. Indications from the applications processed so far are that the success rate will be high. Those teachers who were not eligible to apply this time may do so when they have progressed to the top of the main salary scale, and those who were unsuccessful may reapply.
Several issues were raised before I arrived. I will check Hansard and reply to the Members concerned. However, I want to mention some of the points raised.
Éamonn ONeill raised the issue of costs. The cost in the current financial year will be approximately £50 million, and that includes the cost of arrears from September 2000. The expenditure is being met from additional funds held centrally by my Department for this purpose. Provision for implementation costs and threshold payments was added to the Department’s budget in the comprehensive spending review.
Tom Hamilton and Éamonn ONeill raised the issue of principals and vice-principals. As we all know, the threshold arrangements do not apply to principals and vice-principals. However, the management side of the negotiating committee is considering their salary levels and differentials so that suitable candidates are not discouraged from seeking leadership posts. That is important.
Patricia Lewsley raised the issue of an independent inquiry. I think Éamonn ONeill also mentioned it. The call for an inquiry was made by the teachers’ side as part of the 2001 pay claim and is still progressing through the negotiating committee. I have agreed to meet with both sides on 13 December to examine whether I can help advance matters further.
It is important to emphasise that the threshold arrangements were negotiated between the management side and the teachers’ side after detailed discussions through their existing negotiating machinery. I welcomed their agreement, which both sides worked hard to reach last January. I want to assure the House that I am committed to ensuring that our teachers are properly awarded for their important contribution to society.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. People may not have entirely indicated their willingness to support the amendment, but its objective was to achieve an outcome. It mentions the serious concerns that have been brought to me by teachers about the threshold assessment. Those concerns include equality issues and urging representatives from both sides to reach a situation where everyone feels equal. That was the thrust of the amendment. If people do not feel that they want to support it, I want Billy Hutchinson’s motion to bring the need for a review to the attention of the Department. I accept the points that the Minister has made concerning the meeting that is to take place on 13 December.
Earlier, I stressed the point that both sides have negotiated this position. It will cost a considerable amount of money, and some other area of education may have to lose out — at least that is the way budgets normally work. It is important that all involved take another look at this matter. Negotiation can bring people to a point where everyone is dissatisfied. As far as we are concerned, the issues are outstanding, and they are of prime importance.
The Minister mentioned that equality is central to the Good Friday Agreement and that we are working for the benefit of all citizens. Our Republican belief that we cherish all our children equally is one that we carry strongly. The Minister mentioned raising standards and he spoke about pre-school education. That is where young teachers often start their career. They must wonder where their future will lie, and they must be looking at this particular situation.
Ken Robinson asked whether the issue was about retaining older staff or rewarding people for long service or particularly good service.
I cannot agree with some of the points made by Mr Gibson about the differences in the delivery of service. It is hard to say whether a young teacher is delivering on an equal basis with someone who has been teaching for a long time. Quite often it is about teamwork, and not about an individual teacher working in isolation in a school. Teachers must be able to work in an atmosphere where they are not at odds, and their future is not at odds, with what they do on a day-to-day basis. They want to be able to come up with good, new ideas, and not to have to keep them from others just in case those ideas would end up on the CV of another teacher who would get the extra £2,000 at the end of the year.
Teachers should be left to self-assess and to set their own targets. Female teachers are often overcritical of their own work and need support to self-assess positively. Teachers must be trusted to set targets and to self-assess with appropriate support that is unrelated to the immediate financial award. The outcome of the McCrone report in Scotland offers at least one alternative.
We have had a useful debate. Various issues have been raised, and I want to see them taken on board. I hope that the meetings with the Minister and those involved will achieve that. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: We have had a very encouraging and informed debate, and I thank all Members who took part and those who listened. I accept that the Minister had a reason for being late. I realise that he missed my opening remarks, and I hope that when he has read Hansard he will answer any points that he may have missed.
I am concerned at Gerry McHugh’s opening remarks about the amendment. There seems to be some confusion about the debate. There is an assumption that the local management of schools (LMS) is about money only. We have two main problems with LMS. If a school has low pupil numbers and the teachers are on point 9 of the scale, that school is crippled because the top wage has to be paid. If there are 12 teachers and 10 of them are on the top wage, the bill is crippling. Teachers who have been at a school for a long time have to be paid more, and that causes problems with a shrinking school. That must be recognised. It is not just a question of money, but of how we assess where the teachers should be on the pay scale.
Today’s debate is not about teachers’ pay — it is about the bonus and what that should based on. The bonus is based on the premise that anyone who has reached point 9, because they have served more than seven years as a teacher, is a good teacher, and they are going to bring the four standards that are outlined. My argument is that when young teachers qualify they sign up to the Jordanstown agreement — I nearly said the Good Friday Agreement — and those standards are contained in that agreement. From the day that a teacher starts work, he or she has already signed up to those four standards and should be meeting them.
Éamonn ONeill gave us some very helpful numbers — 232 and only about 10 rejections. A teacher who has been deemed unsatisfactory by the Department of Education can be paid that money — not because he is a good teacher, but because he is on point 9 and has given a certain length of service.
There is an inequality and an injustice here that need to be resolved. A principal can fail a teacher as far as a threshold assessment is concerned, but he can be overruled by an external validator. I know that there are difficulties with principals and vice-principals carrying out this role. However, they know their teachers best, and they know how they are performing on a daily basis. It is wrong that an external validator can contradict a principal.
I thank Ken Robinson for his recognition of young teachers. He gave a graphic description, which I could not give, as I was not a young teacher. I believe that Ken was a young teacher — some time ago. It is important that we understand what young teachers do without remuneration. We should recognise their enthusiasm and their contribution to the lives of many children.
I accept Ken Robinson’s explanation of the reasons for the introduction of the threshold. However, once point 9 has been reached, we are effectively saying that there is something different about those people, and that they have reached the standard. If they then take redundancy, they are still entitled to the threshold payment. There is something wrong with that. Long-term substitute teachers also qualify for the payment. Should it be that a threshold is set at point 9, and once a teacher reaches that point and accepts redundancy, he can have his redundancy and the £2,000 threshold payment that he has qualified for? There is a contradiction in that premise, and it must be re-examined.
Ms Lewsley is correct when she says that differentials are being eroded by the exclusion of principals and vice-principals. In my opening remarks I mentioned that in a small rural school, there might be a difference in salary of only £200 per year between a principal and a teacher. As Tom Hamilton commented, who would want to take on all of those responsibilities for an extra £200 per year?
Mr ONeill gave us a timely history lesson. We should remember that the problems in teaching and in our schools go back to the era of Thatcherism. Thatcher destroyed the whole notion of education, even though she believed in "education, education, education". We now have people competing against one another. Education should not be about competition. It should be about producing fully rounded individuals and how we can get teachers to assist in that.
We have gone on about giving people bonuses. If this is a bonus, that is OK, but let us give people bonuses because they are good at their job, and not because they have been there for a long time.
Mr Gibson highlighted my point about improving teacher performance. Talking about threshold assessment in the same breath as improving teacher performance is making the assumption that length of service raises standards. Regardless of profession, excellence depends on the quality of the person and how good they are at the job, and it cannot be measured by experience or length of time in a job. It is handy to have experience, but it does not necessarily mean that you are better at the job than someone else.
Mr ONeill made the valid point that schools have always been in a dilemma about recognising competence. How do we recognise competence? Mr ONeill is correct, as was Ms Lewsley, on the issue of differentials. Differentials must be protected. Mr ONeill’s point about using a salary scale as a progressive reward is correct.
The only way to reward teachers is to provide that they may start at a particular point and end up at another. Teachers should be rewarded because of the work that they do and what they achieve in their school. A review of teachers’ pay may be the way forward, but progressive reward should be re-examined.
The Deputy Speaker is sitting upright in his Chair so I assume that he wants me to hurry.
I recognise the work that the Minister of Education has done since he took office. I do not want to take away from what he and the Department of Education have achieved. He has made some brave decisions. The Minister mentioned raising education standards, school improvements and pre-school education. Those are all recognised as being valuable, as is the notion of post-primary education and the recent review of that. However, the motion is about the threshold agreement for Northern Ireland. It does not give equality to all members of the teaching profession. The Assembly must focus on that.
I am disappointed that the Minister focused on the other good things that he has done. However, I recognise those and I am sure that all Members recognise them and would not want to take away from those achievements.
Nevertheless, the motion is concerned with equality, and the threshold assessment does not give equality to all the teaching profession.
There are a number of problems in the teaching profession, and I tabled the motion because of the lack of equality within it. I emphasised the inequality shown to young teachers. Members must recognise that young teachers are working hard to attain additional qualifications to those they had when they entered the profession. They do it without any financial reward or support from the Department of Education or others.
Experience does not necessarily make good teachers; we must lay that ghost to rest. Mr McHugh mentioned that teachers meet the changes in the curriculum and everything else on a daily and yearly basis. It is therefore a difficult job, because the curriculum can change from year to year, or every couple of years.
Younger teachers bring new skills and new methods of teaching to the profession. A teacher should not have to wait seven years until he or she is on point 9 before receiving recognition for doing a good job in teaching. Young teachers are the leaders of the future and they will become leaders in our schools only because they themselves have qualified and have had the experience of teaching young people in classrooms.
Members must support the motion which will provide equality across the board, not only for vice-principals and principals, but for those young teachers who have to wait seven years before they qualify.
Question,
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly believes that the threshold assessment (Northern Ireland) does not give equality to all members of the teaching profession.
The sitting was suspended at 12.48 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —

Sellafield Nuclear Plant

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls for the rundown and closure at the earliest possible date of the nuclear-processing activities carried out at Sellafield.
I thank my fellow Assembly Members for giving me the opportunity to bring this important issue to the Floor of the House. In so doing, they have allowed other Members to contribute to an important and ongoing debate.
From the outset, it has been acknowledged that the Assembly has no power or authority over what happens at Sellafield. However, we can at least express all our fears loudly and clearly. It seems that everyone in these islands and further afield is having his or her say, and demands are being made. If Prime Minister Tony Blair’s statement in Dublin last week is anything to go by, many people still need to be convinced before there is real movement towards meeting the demands of this motion.
Sellafield is sited on the Cumbrian coast, a few miles across the Irish Sea from places such as Portavogie and Portaferry in east Down. When the plant first opened in the mid-1950s, it was called Windscale. Shortly after its opening, a reactor caught fire and created havoc, sending a dangerous cloud of fallout into the air over many towns in the north of England.
In the early 1970s, Windscale had another near miss. There was an accident in a plutonium-handling compartment, which had the potential to start a nuclear reaction similar to that experienced at Chernobyl. Swift reactions by staff prevented a full-scale disaster. After these mishaps, the site changed its name to Sellafield.
On this side of the Irish Sea, we have always had our suspicions about activities at the site and the possible consequences for marine life in the Irish Sea. In Northern Ireland, particularly along the east coast, we used to have a thriving fishing industry. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. It is possible that Sellafield may have had a hand in the demise of the fishing industry. There have been high levels of instances of cancer and leukaemia on the east coast, and the finger has been pointed at Sellafield.
On 3 October 2001, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in London announced that the manufacture of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel is justified in accordance with the requirements of European Community law. That statement is incredible, given that there has been widespread opposition to activities at Sellafield since the start of its operations. That announcement, coming some three weeks after the horrendous events of 11 September, is beyond belief. Have people in the Government taken leave of their senses? They must be aware of the concerns of a great many individuals, not only those on this side of the Irish Sea, but also those who live near the Sellafield plant.
In response to a journalist’s queries about the risks associated with Sellafield, I referred to the number of jobs at the plant and the economic benefits of the enterprise. That aspect of the problem must be considered, and efforts must be made to attract more and safer employment to that area.
There are inconsistent reports on the introduction of the new MOX plant. It is said that the economic benefits of the new operation have been distorted. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the plant can attract enough customers. The viability of the plant is in doubt. There are also concerns about past data falsification incidents. A recent report by the Health and Safety Executive’s Nuclear Installation Inspectorate revealed that individual workers had faked safety records. Furthermore, the continuous transportation of large cargoes of this substance across the Irish Sea would be extremely dangerous. If there were ever to be an accident involving one of these vessels, the consequences would be unthinkable.
Further alarming revelations have come to light in relation to security at the Sellafield plant. It has been alleged that a firm employed to guard Sellafield is partly owned by someone with close links to the Afghan terrorists. It has also been revealed that the person in question has a stake in a firm that supplies security systems to Sellafield and has intimate knowledge and access to highly sensitive data about the running of that plant. If there are suspicions attached to security at Sellafield, surely the public have a right to know.
The Irish Government have recognised the problem and are working to convince the British Government of the consequences of any disaster at Sellafield. We welcome their efforts to halt its expansion.
Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other environmentalists are working to see the MOX operation at Sellafield cancelled. A senior director of Greenpeace said that expanding the global trade in plutonium was dangerously irresponsible, especially at a time of huge global insecurity. A Friends of the Earth director also said that it beggared belief that the British Government could give the go-ahead to a process involving the use and transportation of plutonium, which can be used to make weapons. Producing MOX at Sellafield will make the world much less safe.
Those of us who live on the Ards Peninsula, with Strangford Lough on one side and the Irish Sea on the other, are particularly alarmed at the proposed MOX expansion. After the events of 11 September, public representatives have a duty to enlist the support of everyone who values a clean, safe environment to get the message across to the British Government. I note that our own Minister of the Environment, Mr Foster, is present, and I hope that he will question the Government’s actions. We hope that the appropriate Department in London will take seriously the outcome of this debate, withhold any new licence for further activities at Sellafield and start the process of rundown and final closure of the plant.
Members must recognise that we have a potential time bomb only a few miles across the Irish Sea. After the events of 11 September and even this weekend’s suicide bombings in Israel, anything is possible. God forbid that Sellafield should ever become a target. Not only this country but the entire British Isles and even further afield could be obliterated. Let us stop it now. I ask for the Assembly’s support.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "calls" and insert —
"for the withdrawal of the licence issued by the British Government to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd in respect of the full commissioning of the mixed oxide plant, and for the proper decommissioning of all nuclear reprocessing activities, leading to the rundown and closure of the plant at Sellafield in Cumbria."
I commend Mr McCarthy for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. It is very timely. The amendment stands in my name and that of my Colleague Arthur Doherty. I apologise on his behalf. He is absent, not out of disrespect to the House, but because his brother died yesterday.
The Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site has been the centre of controversy for decades; it is not a new problem. Many years have been spent trying to publicise the dangers inherent in such a site. Sellafield, with its multiplicity of operations, represents a potentially serious threat to these islands — to the environment, to public health and to safety.
My concerns about Sellafield include the continued reprocessing of spent nuclear fuels; the continued operation of old magnox reactors; the continued discharge of radioactive material into the Irish Sea; the storage on land of high-level radioactive waste in liquid form; the transportation of nuclear fuels up and down the Irish Sea to and from the site; safety management at the site, as mentioned by Mr McCarthy; and, particularly since 11 September, the risk of catastrophic accident or deliberate attack.
The commissioning of the mixed oxide plant — which is currently the subject of two legal cases, besides that which was heard at Hamburg last Monday — is an unjustified and unnecessary expansion of nuclear operations at Sellafield. The British Government approved licensing on 3 October despite opposition from Ireland, the Nordic countries and non-governmental organisations. It was clear that the permission was driven by the Exchequer and the public purse in the UK. Believe it or not, the MOX plant has yet to obtain consent from the Health and Safety Executive, yet it has been licensed to operate.
When the British Government issued the licence, they took advice from a low-level section of the Department of Trade and Industry. They did not wait for the report of the committee that they had appointed for that purpose, which is called OSPAN. The report has not yet been published, but there is an interim report that is disadvantageous to the decision that was made.
According to eminent scientists, particularly those of the Oxford research group, who have consistently asserted that there is no economic case for MOX, there is no economic justification for commissioning the plant. We must remember that the British Government keep arguing for that economic case.
In a critique of the Arthur D Little report, nuclear consultant Mike Sadnicki pointed out that the data falsification incident in September 1999 that Mr McCarthy mentioned significantly reduced the likelihood that Japanese utilities will sign MOX contracts with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL). He concluded that if "very plausible" assumptions are made about Japanese markets and, more appropriately, the discount rates now being used, the plant might fail to cover even its own operating costs.
Only last week, one of Sellafield’s main customers told a parliamentary subcommittee at Westminster that it wants to terminate its reprocessing contracts with BNFL because they are too costly.
British Energy told MPs that it
"has never re-used any of the material produced because it would be uneconomic to do so, and this is likely to remain the case in the short to medium term. Reprocessing fuel is an unnecessary and costly exercise that British Energy cannot afford. Reprocessing produces materials that have no current economic value. There is no technical need for reprocessing".
British Energy further stated that
"most countries do not carry out reprocessing, recognising the economic drawbacks, and propose to directly dispose of their spent fuel".
Those arguments have been enunciated by the Oxford research group as reasons why the British Government should not have commissioned the mixed oxide plant. In the light of such professional advice and evidence, we must ask why the British Government and British Nuclear Fuels Limited persist with the operation of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) and with the licensing of the MOX plant now coming into vogue. Available evidence from all sources flies in the face of the judgement made.
The Irish Government also believe that there is no economic justification of the commission of the mixed oxide plant. Their Minister for energy asserted last month that the British Government have
"bowed to spurious economic arguments by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd in favour of the MOX plant, and has ignored or rejected the real and genuine concerns about the plant expressed by over 2,000 respondents to the consultation process, including Ireland".
The Government of the Republic of Ireland and all other non-governmental organisations are fully justified in bringing legal actions against the British Government in respect of Sellafield and the commissioning of the new MOX plant.
There is no doubt that the level of radioactive discharges into the Irish Sea will increase. In 1985 a House of Commons Environment Select Committee report stated that Sellafield pumped a quarter of a tonne of highly radioactive plutonium into the Irish Sea. How much has gone into the Irish Sea on a day-to-day, month-to-month, and year-to-year basis since the early 1950s? A leaked British Nuclear Fuels Ltd document from June 2001 indicated that radioactive discharges from Sellafield will increase over the next three years. Such discharges will increase either two-fold or four-fold, peaking in time for the next meeting of the Environment Ministers at the OSPAR (Oslo-Paris Commission) North Atlantic Convention in 2003. The increased discharges fly in the face of the commitments that the British Government gave in 1998 to the OSPAR conference in Sintra, Portugal, to undertake to reduce radioactive discharges.
At the subsequent OSPAR conference in Valencia in June 2001, the countries decided that the policies agreed at the previous conference — to review discharge authorisation from the reprocessing plants with a view to implementing the non-reprocessing options for spent fuel — should be carried out as a matter of urgency. However, significantly, the UK, French, and Swiss Governments abstained from the vote. It was in fact a veto of the implementation of the policies of reduced discharges, on which they had already agreed. It was a technical loophole by which the two major nuclear powers, France and Britain, frustrated the agreement that had already been made — a total lack of honour on their part.
In July, the UK Environment Agency published its long-awaited proposals for the future regulation of radioactive waste disposal from Sellafield. The consultation period for those proposals ended yesterday. That is why this debate is so timely. It has been argued that none of the new liquid discharge limits imposed by the Environment Agency will in any way constrain British Nuclear Fuels Ltd from reaching full throughput in its two reprocessing plants. There must be progressive reductions in the actual discharges of radioactive and toxic wastes from Sellafield into the Irish Sea until they are totally eliminated.
Only last week, Britain’s Minister of State for Industry and Energy, Brian Wilson, claimed that the Fianna Fáil advertisement in ‘The Times’ on 24 November against the MOX plant at Sellafield was not backed up by the Irish Government’s own monitoring of Sellafield.

Mr Jim Wells: I notice that the hon Member is drawing his remarks to a close — he will be glad to know that there is no time limit, so I am not cutting in on his allocation.
Mr McGrady has spoken eloquently on the motion, but I cannot detect any great difference between the thrust of his argument and that put forward by Mr McCarthy, nor has he yet addressed the reasoning behind his amendment. It may be a tactical amendment and if so, that is fine. Is there any difference between what he is saying and what Mr McCarthy is saying? Will the Member be pushing his amendment to a vote?

Mr Eddie McGrady: First, I assure the Member that the amendment is not tactical. In fact, I could have argued that the original motion was not competent because British Nuclear Fuels Ltd does not process materials at Sellafield — it reprocesses them. There is a huge technical difference.
Secondly, the amendment discusses the licence from the British Government to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd for the new MOX plant and calls for the complete rundown and closure of Sellafield. These are fundamental differences. I assume that my amendment would not have been accepted had it not been substantively different to the motion. I will proceed and not be presumed to be winding up, as Mr Wells thought.
The British Government accused the Irish Government of bad faith in that the former said that the latter, in their advert, had not heeded their own monitoring reports from Sellafield. It should be pointed out that the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) stated in its last report that discharges of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea from Sellafield continue to be a dominant source of contamination.
The RPII mentioned the re-mobilisation from sediments of historic discharges. That wonderful phrase simply means that the radioactive material that was theoretically meant to be embedded in the mud of the Irish Sea has been re-mobilised and is circulating. It was never intended that that should happen. There are several cases pending against the British Government, and I hope that they will come to fruition.
As Mr McCarthy said, this debate comes in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in New York on 11 September. It is interesting to note that the World Information Service on Energy (WISE), which is a group of scientists based in Paris, undertook an assessment of the security risk at Sellafield prior to the terrorist attack in the USA. The report was published just after the horrific and horrendous events of 11 September. The report mentioned Sellafield as having one of the highest inventories of radioactive waste in the world. The report also presented Sellafield as an enormous security risk. That report was written before 11 September, although it was only published after that date.
For these reasons, and many others that would take too long to articulate, I commend the amendment to Mr McCarthy. At the end of the debate, there may be a composite motion that will be satisfactory to all Members.

Mr Jim Shannon: Sellafield is an issue that concerns us all, not only because we live on the Irish Sea coast but because, as Mr McGrady said, it highlights our direct concerns. We in the Ards area have talked about Sellafield often in recent weeks, not because we have nothing else to talk about, but because it is of great concern to people in the area. Ards Borough Council has debated it on three occasions.
Since the tragedies of 11 September, our fear has been that Sellafield would become a target. Before then, some people might have thought that our fears were extreme. It might be thought outrageous to suppose that Sellafield would be attacked. However, the Americans thought it was so incredible that anyone should decide to attack the twin towers that they used the World Trade Centre as a flight simulator crash exercise. That is, perhaps, an indication that they thought it would never happen. But it did happen. Think how easy it would be to hire a light aircraft out of a small airport — Newtownards airport being one example — and to fly across the Irish Sea to the nuclear power station. Again, some would suggest that that is ridiculous, but it is not. It could happen.
A few weeks ago, the press reminded us of Sellafield’s vulnerability. RAF fighter jets were scrambled to patrol the skies over the plant for some five hours. Had anything happened they might have been just a little late, but they did respond. The call turned out to be a hoax, but it highlights the fears and misgivings of people in our Province, particularly the residents of my Strangford constituency and of the Ards borough.
For years we have worried about the health problems that may have been caused by the plant’s proximity to our coast, but no one ever thought in their wildest dreams that the plant could be used to wipe out Northern Ireland in one foul act of inhumanity. The fallout from a nuclear explosion would kill everyone in the Strangford constituency — and a brave few other people as well. The land would be unable to sustain any life for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years. That is the doomsday scenario, but it could happen if terrorists were to appoint themselves to carry it out. It is unlikely that any of us could survive the holocaust of a nuclear explosion and the resulting fallout.
Northern Ireland is one of only two parts of the United Kingdom without a nuclear bunker for shelter in the event of such an incident. That highlights — and is symptomatic of — how the rest of the United Kingdom views the people of Northern Ireland. In its debate, Ards Borough Council urged the Government to give strong, solid assurances that Sellafield is protected.
It is typical of the English to persist with a white elephant, even though the rest of the world tells them to stop. We have seen that stubbornness in the ruin of our National Health Service by an idiotic policy that has been pressed into service by Governments. The peace process in Northern Ireland is riddled with skulduggery and cheating to make it work and make it fit, even though the people can see that it is a fallacy.
The Government want to expand the Sellafield plant. They have tried to assure us that any emissions from it will be minimal and have no impact. I asked the Minister of the Environment that very question, and his response was that they are of "negligible radiological significance". What does that mean if, in perhaps ten years’ time, we find out that that "negligible radiological significance" is greater than scientists thought today?
The coast of County Down has the highest incidence of cancer in the United Kingdom. There are clusters of cancer groups where people feel a greater impact from cancer, more have the disease and more receive treatment than in other parts of the Province.
Are the Government’s statements as truthful as they would have us believe? They have a less than brilliant track record for honesty; Members need only look at the BSE crisis, which continues to cause trauma.
The reprocessing plant’s emissions are in excess of the recommended European Union levels. Members must take that issue on board, because we are concerned about the fact that the emissions recorded along the coast of County Down and in the rest of the United Kingdom are above accepted levels in other parts of Europe and elsewhere. Can we, therefore, deduce that the Government are telling us one thing and the European Union is telling us another? Who should we believe?
Given the British Government’s track record, we should consider the European Union’s advice. We should support the motion and the comments that Members put forward. Members should agree with Mr McGrady’s amendment; it is acceptable. We should collectively support the campaign for the closure of Sellafield.
The press have reported that the radioactive discharges from Sellafield are to increase, and that is of deep concern to us. The increase could be detrimental both to the communities that live near the Irish Sea and to the fishing industry. Mr McGrady, Mr Wells, Mr McCarthy and I represent areas with sizeable fishing communities, and we are concerned about the impact that increased emissions would have on them.
Sellafield poses an unacceptable risk to all those who live and work close to it. I have fears about the security around the site as the war on the Taliban threatens to escalate. The fact that the RAF scrambled jets is a good sign that the Government consider the threat to be real, but for jet fighters to appear after there has been a threat is insufficient to prevent an attack. If the threat had been real, the plant would have already erupted into flames, emitting radioactive material. The planes would have arrived too late, and the population of Strangford and the Down coast would have been decimated. The only way to prevent such an accident — whether that be as the result of human error or terrorist attack — is to close the plant until such times as the Government can be trusted to tell us the truth and guarantee us the safety that we demand.
The Chernobyl incident in the 1980s was a shock to us, yet we may have become a bit complacent about it. Were Sellafield to close today, we would still have to live with its legacy for thousands of years. However, were the move made to close it today, at least that would be a start.
Can any Member imagine people in other parts of the world campaigning for the children of Ards, Strangford and the Down coast in the way that they do for the children of Chernobyl? After Chernobyl, we were afraid, and we were told to be cautious about drinking milk in case radiation had filtered through the grass into the food chain.
In the past, we were eager to accept Government statements as to whether things were OK. However, recently the Government have proven to be unreliable, and we must demand that action be taken because we, as citizens of the United Kingdom, deserve to have our national security taken seriously. I agree with Mr McGrady’s amendment.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. It is welcome to see that the DUP and the Alliance Party are concerned about an issue that affects the people of Ireland. Perhaps, we will be able to convert them to an all-Ireland agenda.
I view the SDLP’s amendment with deep regret. The Assembly should unite on the issue. Instead, for personal reasons, Mr McGrady has chosen to table an amendment that adds nothing to the debate. At the same time, I recognise that he has been at the forefront of those who have raised the issue of Sellafield over the years. I welcome the fact that Ireland can unite on this important issue. However, it would be more effective if all parties could unanimously support the motion.
In the post-11 September climate, when the British Government are rightly working closely with other nations, the danger posed by their reluctance to close down the disaster-in-waiting known as Sellafield is too enormous for most rational people to contemplate. The British Government apparently think that, should a successful attack on Sellafield occur, the loss of possibly one million lives is an acceptable risk to take. Some argue that the number of lives that would be lost is unknown. However, what is known is the high incidence of leukaemia in children living close to Sellafield.
The facts contained in a recent report prepared for the European Parliament on the possible toxic effects of nuclear reprocessing plants at Sellafield and Cap de la Hague are damning. The rate of leukaemia in those children is eight times higher than normal. The report states that
"Radiation exposure due to radionuclides release from Sellafield cannot be excluded as a cause for the observed health effects."
Is that not an attack on the innocent? The report is the most damning ever produced on the operations of Sellafield. It challenges the economic activities of the reprocessing industry, as well as the extremely casual approach of the EU Commission towards its duty to verify activities at Sellafield.
Nuclides released into the air and sea contaminate the food chain, and people may receive radioactive contamination from radioactive aerosols, inhalation of radioactive gases and ground shine from nuclides deposited on land. The linear no-threshold model adopted by the scientific community states that there is no level of radiation exposure below which there is no effect. Even the smallest possible dose, such as a photon passing through a cell nucleus, carries a risk of cancer.
It is outrageous that the European Commission cannot even guarantee that basic safety standards will be met. Britain seems to think that it does not have to worry about such mundane concerns as safety, because it did not request the European Commission’s opinion under article 34 of the Euratom Treaty.
There has been a reduction in radioactive emissions. However, other, more harmful, emissions are increasing. The increase of key radionuclides from Sellafield, and expected future discharges, are totally inconsistent with the obligations of the British Government under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention).
Ireland is not a distant land, although I often suspect that the British would like that to be the case. The fish along our coastline live in extremely polluted waters, but the British dismiss Irish concerns about the dangers of such pollution as if a fish with two heads were something to marvel at.
On a clear day it is possible to see the Sellafield plant from the majestic Mournes — it is not a comforting sight. The Sellafield nuclear plant is closer to Belfast than it is to Glasgow, and it is closer to Dublin than it is to London. It is vitally important that all parties on this island work together to force the British Government to close this death trap at Sellafield immediately. Britain should suspend MOX plant operations until the full hearing of the Irish case in February 2002. No one group, person or political party will have all the answers or can win the battle alone, but if we work together in the Assembly and in the island of Ireland with the campaigners in Britain and Europe, we will all have a stronger mandate and a stronger voice. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Norman Boyd: Sellafield is a problem that directly impacts on the people of Northern Ireland. Located on the coast of Cumbria, it is almost directly across the Irish Sea from Belfast. It is known by many environmentalists as "the nuclear dustbin of the world". The survey by the University of Bremen commissioned by Greenpeace states that
"The area around the Sellafield reprocessing plant (UK) is as heavily contaminated with radioactivity as the zone around the stricken Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine".
Mike Townsley of Greenpeace International said that
"Sellafield is a slow-motion Chernobyl, an accident played out over the last four decades. While an area of 30 km radius around Chernobyl is prohibited access for people and any agricultural activity, there are no such restrictions around Sellafield".
Worryingly, more than a third of the plutonium pumped into the Irish Sea from Sellafield over the past 40 years is said to be missing. Plutonium dust washed inshore is thought to be a potential cause of cancer and birth defect clusters.
A study by Dr Patricia Sheehan published in ‘The Lancet’ showed links between the fire at the Sellafield plant — when it was known as Windscale — and instances of Down’s Syndrome, stillbirths, Asian flu and cancer. Another study by a leading scientist, Gardner, showed that contaminated Sellafield workers could pass on genetic damage to their children resulting in leukaemia and stillbirths. Leukaemia clusters have been found near Sellafield and the Dounreay nuclear plant in Scotland.
Sellafield also has a notoriously poor safety record and, according to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, data on fuel given to Japan had been systematically falsified.
The opening of the MOX plant will herald a plethora of new disasters waiting to happen. A MOX plant reprocesses plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to mankind. Stephen Tindale, the executive director of Greenpeace in the United Kingdom, said that
"expanding the global trade in plutonium is dangerously irresponsible, especially at a time of huge global insecurity".
Using the Irish Sea as a transport route to and from Sellafield puts Northern Ireland at even greater risk. It is clear that the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is more concerned with the loss of jobs than with the health and well-being of the population. The Prime Minister is on record as saying
"I totally understand the concerns of people, but our difficulty is that we end up in a situation where there will be a lot of people who will lose their jobs".
This is a totally irresponsible policy of the Prime Minister and the Government.
Mention has already been made of the potential for terrorist attacks and the possibility of terrorists obtaining MOX fuel. The fear, heightened by the recent terror attacks in the United States, is that terrorists could extract plutonium from MOX, which could be used in nuclear weapons or in "dirty bombs" — conventional devices containing the substance. They do not explode like a nuclear bomb but can spread radiation over a large area. Charles Secrett, director of Friends of the Earth, said
"The Government’s decision to allow the MOX plant to open….makes the world an even more dangerous place".
I therefore support the motion.

Mr Sam Foster: It seems as if the British Government are taking a bashing today from so-called adherents. I prefer to say "Her Majesty’s Government". Mr Mick Murphy’s talk of an attack on the innocent was poignant; there was an attack on the innocent in this country for 30 years, and, in many instances, the silence was deafening.
I am aware of the public concern surrounding Sellafield. For that reason, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this motion. It is extremely important that the Assembly and the Northern Ireland public are given clear information about Sellafield — about its discharges into the Irish Sea and how responsibility for the regulation of Sellafield has been allocated under the law of Her Majesty’s Government.
As most Members will be aware, responsibility for regulating the discharges from the Sellafield complex rests with the Environment Agency for England and Wales. Regulation of the wider security aspects is the responsibility of the Office of Civil Nuclear Security, an agency under the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry. The citizens of Northern Ireland, as of Cumbria and other parts of the United Kingdom, rightly look to these agencies to safeguard their health and environmental interests. Those agencies, and the UK Ministers for Environment and Trade and Industry, bear a heavy responsibility towards the citizens of these islands.
The powers of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly are necessarily more limited. My Department has a vital role in monitoring the impact of discharges from Sellafield into the Irish Sea on the Northern Ireland coastline. We have had a comprehensive monitoring programme to assess these impacts for many years. My Department reviews this monitoring system annually to ensure that it is sufficiently robust, taking into account any changes at the Sellafield complex. I am glad to say that the results of the monitoring are published annually. The availability of objective scientific information is crucial to a clear understanding of the issues surrounding Sellafield. At this point, I should emphasise that the results of this monitoring have consistently shown minimal amounts of radioactivity, at levels that are consistent with normal background levels.
The Department has also undertaken joint studies with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and with University College Dublin on the impact of discharges from Sellafield. These studies also consistently show low radioactivity levels on the Irish coastline in counties Down, Louth and beyond. It has been calculated that the most exposed members of the public would receive around 0·002 microsieverts per year from the operation of the MOX plant. This equates to around two seconds flying on a transatlantic flight. People in Northern Ireland receive, on average, 2,500 microsieverts of radiation per year from all natural and artificial resources. Fifty per cent of this is due to exposure to radon in the home, and 12% is from medical exposure. Nuclear discharges account for less than 0·1%. While we must never be complacent about the risks, equally we should avoid alarming people unnecessarily. For that reason, it is my duty to repeat the broad thrust of the scientific evidence so that the Northern Ireland public is made aware of it.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair).
It is important to note that in addition to the regular monitoring of discharges on the marine environment, my Department continues to play a part with other Departments in planning for dealing with nuclear accidents. Following the Chernobyl accident, the Northern Ireland technical advice group was set up to oversee and advise on our response to an overseas nuclear accident. This group draws its membership from all relevant Northern Ireland Departments, including those responsible for countermeasures in regard to public health, drinking water and the food chain. My Department also has a radiological emergency response plan, which deals with a range of actions to be taken in the event of such an incident. Of course, the Northern Ireland emergency plan is fully integrated into the UK one.
That said, I want to emphasise to Members that I fully understand that there is widespread public concern about Sellafield. I realise that this concern has been heightened as a result of the recent terrorist incidents in the USA. The recent decision to approve the MOX plant at Sellafield was, of course, taken jointly by the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Both carry important responsibilities to all citizens of the United Kingdom and beyond.

Mr Jim Wells: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sam Foster: No, I want to continue.
Consent from the Health and Safety Executive’s Nuclear Inspectorate will also be required before plutonium can be introduced into the plant. These are important safeguards.
It is also of some relevance that the UN Tribunal on the Law of the Seas has recently refused the Republic of Ireland Government’s case for having the Sellafield MOX project halted. The scrutiny of this important body should provide some further assurance to us. However, I have also noted its injunction that the UK Government should share information on Sellafield and that the UK Government has agreed to do so.
That is to be welcomed.

Mr Jim Wells: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sam Foster: I do not intend to give way. I will be kept fully informed about consultations between the two Governments following the tribunal’s decision, and Sellafield will be a subject of consideration by the British-Irish Council.
After the attacks on 11 September in the United States, my Department contacted the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in order to seek assurances that, amongst other things, the potential impact of a terrorist incident at Sellafield would be taken into account when the decision on the MOX plant is made. That correspondence will be copied to the Environment Committee of the Assembly. Recently, I also wrote to Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A copy was sent to Stephen Byers, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for civil nuclear safety matters at Sellafield. My purpose was to seek further information and assurances about the regulation of Sellafield, particularly the security arrangements after 11 September. I look forward to receiving the UK Government’s response in due course and will convey as much of it to the Assembly as national security constraints will allow.
I want to be satisfied that Northern Ireland’s interests are taken into account and protected by the competent UK authorities. To that end, I will continue to pay close attention to radiological monitoring and to seek information from the relevant UK authorities on the safety and security of operations at Sellafield.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I appreciate the contributions made by everyone, which will join the similar comments made by the proposer of the motion. There have not been many disagreements about the cause that we are pursuing, except that I have been accused of two things: first, bashing the British Government over the issue — and yes, I admit to that and plead guilty, and I will continue to do so; secondly, there was a rather strange alliance between Sinn Féin and the DUP to bash me and my Colleague for daring to table an amendment. I am glad to see that there is some unanimity between the two parties, as Sinn Féin accused the DUP and the Alliance Party of such unanimity. There is a lovely triangle at work in the Chamber today.
Mick Murphy attacked me personally by saying that I had proposed the amendment for personal reasons. That is an insult not only to me but also to my absent Colleague to whom I earlier offered my condolences on the bereavement in his family.
The motion is in respect of nuclear-processing activities. The stoppage of nuclear-processing activities will not give a result. It is necessary to stop nuclear- reprocessing activities, which is a very different scientific concept. The amendment was tabled yesterday after an announcement at 11.00 am from the tribunal of the International Law of the Sea in Hamburg regarding the case that the Irish Government brought against the British Government over the licensing that is pending full implementation. That is not contained in the motion, and it is important that we address the issue.
I like to think that there is no disputation in the Chamber. It might be presumptuous of me, but when the proposer and the seconder are winding up, could they amalgamate the two into a composite motion, so that we will have total unanimity?
The proposer of the motion drew our attention to the enormous potential health risks of cancer clusters. These were also mentioned by Mr Shannon.
It is important that some of the Minister’s comments are dealt with in a short winding-up speech. I have already dealt with the accusations of bashing the British Government. I have admitted to that and pleaded guilty, and I will continue the bashing as an unrepentant sinner. However, as a protection for relative inaction, the Minister says that he is happy to depend on the safeguards of the Health and Safety Executive of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps he did not listen to what I said. The Health and Safety Executive in England has not yet given advice to the British Government; neither has it made its conditions appropriate to the issue of the licence. The British Government went ahead of its Health and Safety Executive.
The Minister also quoted the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland as an argument for relative inactivity. Perhaps I spoke too softly, but the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland clearly stated in a recent report that Sellafield is
"the dominant source of this contamination"
in the Irish Sea. A further report from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland stated that along the Irish coastline, the highest activity concentrations of radioactive material are observed in the north-east — the area for which the Minister is responsible.
He should not be able to hide behind these two important protection bodies if those bodies have concerns or have not made a commitment to approving the licensing. Licensing is one of the most important and immediate issues, as it will multiply enormously the reprocessing capacity and, therefore, the generation of high, medium and low-level radioactive material.
The Minister said that there is great public concern. I am glad that that is recognised. The House recognises it, and the Minister must show by his actions that he recognises it too. What more will be done about it?
The Minister also referred to the assurances that he is getting from the British Government — rather he is awaiting a reply from them — that the security risk is containable. Before 11 September, the World Information Service on Energy described the grave security risks attendant on Sellafield, information that has since been published. I am far from convinced that the British Government took the scale of security risks into account when they made their decision. I repeat, the OSPAN committee — as distinct from OSPAR — which was appointed to advise the Government, has yet to report. The British Government even went ahead of it. This was a hasty decision made for particular reasons.
It is especially important today because of the decision taken at Hamburg yesterday morning. This is an important week. It is important that we realise what happened in this one of the two or three pending cases. We now have interim findings from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea with regard to the Irish Government’s bid to prevent the commissioning of the mixed oxide plant. The international tribunal refused the Irish Government’s request to force the British Government to withdraw the licence.
However, it did other things. The president of the tribunal ordered the British and Irish Governments to co-operate and consult on measures in the coming weeks. The tribunal insisted that both Governments report to it before 17 December. The tribunal further prescribed that both Governments shall exchange the necessary information to enable a reasoned judgement to be made. It also insisted that both Governments establish a mechanism to monitor the operation and the effect that this plant will have on the Irish Sea. It gives latitude to the president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to ask for further reports. This is not a clean sheet; this is not a blanket refusal from the tribunal. It is saying, "We shall not halt the licensing now; but we want to be assured by your urgent reporting that you are satisfied that the international law is required".
We will be looking for that report before Christmas and for a further report in January 2002. It is not a lost cause, and it is important that we follow it to its conclusion.
This debate has been held many times, and I make no excuse for rehearsing it. If the commissioning of the MOX plant goes ahead, that will affect and perpetuate nuclear reprocessing activities at Sellafield and add dramatically to the level of radioactive discharges to the marine environment. It will also increase the volume of worldwide shipments of nuclear fuels, with the obvious risks to traffic in the Irish Sea.
Other European countries, particularly the Nordic countries and Iceland, have increased their pressure on the British Government through the EU. The International Energy Agency and the WISE group of scientists in Paris have emphasised the need to rethink the issue. The Northern Ireland Executive, and particularly the Minister’s Department, must take concerted action and reflect the opinion expressed in the Chamber and that of the people of Northern Ireland, to strongly oppose the licensing of the MOX plant.
I support Mr McCarthy. We must continue the process of decommissioning and eventual closure of the entire plant at Sellafield. That is what our constituents want. It is not just a wish; it is substantiated across all agencies. Britain has flouted the OSPAR agreement made at Sintra as regards the discharge levels that it undertook to reduce. It went ahead of its own environment and health and safety executive report, and it went ahead of the WISE security report.
That has all been driven by dubious financial considerations, because it can now be proved — given the views of one of the main contractors, British Energy — that it is too expensive to reprocess nuclear waste. It is not cost-effective. No one uses the end product of reprocessed uranium and plutonium.
It is important that the Department of the Environment, through the North/South Ministerial Council, the British- Irish Council and the Council of the Isles, gets the message across that we cannot, and will not, accept what is happening to the environment. There are potential health and security risks.
I had no intention of diminishing the main motion. My aim was to exploit the licensing situation that was created yesterday morning; to make our objections known and to correct a couple of words in the motion. The winding-up speech should show that we have a commonality of approach and a common motion to propose and accept.

Mr Jim Wells: Mr McGrady’s words have fallen on fertile ground. After consulting Mr McCarthy we are mindful, with the will of the House, to accept Mr McGrady’s amendment. That proves that we do sometimes listen. I can say that with double certainty because, until this afternoon, I had lost the hearing in my left ear. In the middle of his speech, my hearing came back. — [Interruption].
Not only am I listening but today Mr McGrady has given me the ability to listen fully. We accept that his amendment is clarifying a difficulty that he had with the original motion and adds to it. It is important that, as an Assembly, we go forward united on this crucial issue. There is no unholy alliance between Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party and the DUP. The DUP has consulted the Alliance Party, and we are happy to accept the SDLP amendment.
It is very sad that a Minister can come before the House, read from a prepared text given to him by his officials and refuse to accept the intervention of a Member who wants to ask crucial questions about the welfare and health of the people of this Province. How are we ever going to perform properly as an Assembly if Ministers are not prepared to give way when there is a time limit on an issue as crucial as this? I will ask the three questions that I intended to ask the Minister had he given way. I will give him the opportunity to intervene at any time during my speech, and for as long as he likes, to answer those questions.
Was Mr Foster, as Minister of the Environment, consulted before the decision to go ahead with the MOX plant at Sellafield was announced? The people of Northern Ireland need to know, because we will be directly affected by the implications of the opening of that plant.
If he was consulted, what comments did he make to his counterpart at Westminster on this vital issue? If he was not consulted, did he protest in the strongest possible fashion that the Assembly was being ignored and that its views were not taken into account before the decision was made? The people of Northern Ireland have a right to know the answers to those questions. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to answer them, if he feels that that is appropriate.
Sellafield is closer to Belfast than it is to Sheffield or Birmingham. This is a reserved matter, and the Assembly has no direct control over the licensing of Sellafield. However, the implications of anything going wrong at Sellafield are more important to the people of Belfast than they are to the people of Birmingham, because we are that much closer. Sellafield was opened in 1956 and is literally across the Irish Sea. It has produced the most radioactive, contaminated sea in the world. All the risks associated with Sellafield fall on the people of Northern Ireland, but none of the benefits. Nobody from Northern Ireland is employed at Sellafield. None of the power produced at Sellafield goes onto the Northern Ireland grid. However, it is the folk on the east coast of the Province, in Portavogie and Portaferry, Ardglass, Kilkeel and Newcastle, who will be directly affected by the continuing radioactivity of the Irish Sea, or if something goes drastically wrong.
A recent issue of ‘New Scientist’ magazine predicted that a terrorist attack on Sellafield would produce a radioactive cloud of dust 44 times bigger than the cloud that escaped from Chernobyl. Chernobyl is many thousands of miles away from Northern Ireland, but as older Members will remember, there were major implications for agriculture, even in Northern Ireland, as a result of the fallout from that accident. Scientists predict an impact 44 times greater.
I suppose that some would have said, before September 11, that this speculation was fanciful, and that it would be incredible that anyone should think that a plane could be crashed into a tall building, killing many thousands of people. Now, unfortunately, we see all too clearly that that is indeed a real threat. If some lunatic terrorist decided to bomb Sellafield, the implications for Northern Ireland would be horrendous. It was my hope that we would have heard an announcement that Sellafield was to be run down as safely as possible.
The reason that the announcement regarding the MOX plant is so important after five years of consultation is that the £470 million that has been spent on developing it, and the decision to continue using it, means that there is little prospect of running Sellafield down. The MOX plant is an entirely new process in which there has been much investment. The Government will feel that they simply have to continue pumping in large amounts of money to keep that plant going.
The MOX plant cost £470 million. It is predicted that even on the most optimistic basis, it will make a net profit of £200 million over its lifespan. No matter what happens, this new plant is a white elephant that will cost British taxpayers, including ourselves, a significant amount of money. Even that estimated profit is based on the assumption that BNFL will secure all the markets that it has predicted will be secured. However, that is far from the reality. As things stand, BNFL has markets for only 11% of the produce that it intends to manufacture. What will happen if it is unsuccessful in obtaining new markets? There will be huge stockpiling of MOX products at Sellafield, which is only a few miles from the east coast of Northern Ireland.
The Japanese market appears to be rapidly drying up. As a result of the falsification, deliberate or otherwise, of some of the information given to the Japanese, it seems that they are getting cold feet about purchasing any further reprocessed material from Sellafield. Sweden is also getting cold feet, and other markets are far from secure. Will that lead to stockpiling of vast amounts of radioactive material? The chances are that it will.

Mr Sam Foster: I will reply to Mr Wells’s questions. I welcome this debate. It is good to tease out the feelings of the Assembly. I know that Members have many concerns, and I am not taking those lightly.
Mr Wells asked whether I was consulted; I was not. I have raised concerns about security issues. I have written to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to Margaret Beckett and to Stephen Byers, and I await a reply from them.

Mr Jim Wells: I thank the Minister for his answers, as far as they go. I wonder if he will ever be able to release that correspondence, because I hope that if he wrote to his counterpart Minister in Westminster, it was to protest in the strongest possible fashion about the lack of consultation. He has now admitted that there was no consultation with the Assembly or its Ministers before the decision was made.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: What the Minister has said is very revealing. This part of the United Kingdom has been affected for years. This debate did not start yesterday. In the European committee on which I served, I learnt that Sellafield had been polluting the Irish Sea for years, and that there was danger in that. Now, with Sellafield’s new departure to try to keep doing its work under another guise and a different name, we learn that the Minister with responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland on this issue was not even told about it. He was not consulted. That is ridiculous.
The British Government must be called to account. I will be asking a question in Westminster about this, and I am sure that Mr McGrady will do the same. Even though the Assembly does not have powers on this issue, it should not have been ignored. Our Minister should have at least been consulted and informed of what was happening. That is how the British Government act — they do the job and then the people hear about it.

Mr Jim Wells: I thank the hon Member for his comment.

Mr Sam Foster: I must emphasise that I have nothing to hide. I wrote to my Westminster counterparts because I was concerned that I had not been consulted on the matter, and I knew that the people of Northern Ireland were concerned.

Mr Jim Wells: I appreciate the Minister’s comments. I am glad that the deafness that left me did not transfer to him. He heard my questions, and he has answered them. However, I am not reassured by the news that a Westminster Department decided to go ahead with a decision that has major implications for the health of the people of Northern Ireland and did not even think it worthwhile to write to the counterpart Northern Ireland Department.
While it is true that the Department of the Environment has no direct control over the licensing of Sellafield, it has direct control over the testing and assessment of the water and air in Northern Ireland for radioactivity. Therefore, if for no other reason but to give him his place, Mr Foster should have been consulted. I hope that the message sent by the Assembly and the Minister to Westminster is that we will not tolerate that sort of treatment in regard to a matter that is so directly linked to our people’s welfare and health.
Several Members raised the issue of transportation. As well as the dangers of a terrorist attack on Sellafield, large quantities of nuclear material will be transported to and from Sellafield, mostly by boat, sometimes by air. There could be a natural disaster, with a ship running aground on rocks or sinking while carrying a load of nuclear material. If there were a MOX plant, more ships would be sailing to and from Cumbria. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment should have been consulted about sea traffic.
I do not want to be alarmist and scare people. However, if a heavily laden plane is hijacked at an airport in the north of England and is directed towards Sellafield, almost nothing can be done to stop it. Events in the United States are evidence of that.
What is happening at Sellafield is deeply alarming. As a community we are united on this issue, and those of us who represent communities on the east coast of Northern Ireland are particularly concerned. We receive none of the benefits of Sellafield, but we have all the worries and penalties. I hope that the Assembly sends out a united message that we must be consulted in the future and that the ultimate aim of the UK Government — our Government — is the gradual and safe rundown of nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield.
Finally, if Sellafield is so safe, why is it not located in the Midlands, and if it is so watertight, how many of its executives live within a 30-mile radius of the plant?
Question,
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls for the withdrawal of the licence issued by the British Government to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd in respect of the full commissioning of the mixed oxide plant, and for the proper decommissioning of all nuclear reprocessing activities, leading to the rundown and closure of the plant at Sellafield in Cumbria.

Dual Currency Status for the Euro/Sterling in Northern Ireland

Ms Jane Morrice: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the UK Government to make the necessary legal and financial arrangements for the euro to be officially recognised as a second currency alongside sterling in Northern Ireland after 1 January 2002.
I draw Members’ attention to the fact that despite many attempts on my part, this is the first time that the Assembly has debated the vital issue of the single European currency. The debate is long overdue.
Although Northern Ireland is not part of the euro zone, the impact of its arrival on the local economy will be tremendous, and we must be prepared. Just four weeks from today, the greatest single economic event in the history of the European Union will swing into action. It will affect 300 million people in tens of millions of homes in hundreds of thousands of villages in 12 European countries, and it will affect us. The United Kingdom may have chosen to "wait and see", but in Northern Ireland it must be recognised that we will be touched by the euro phenomenon whether we like it or not.
Northern Ireland is the only area of the United Kingdom that has a land border with a euro zone. Undoubtedly, Northern Ireland will feel the effects more than any other region of the United Kingdom. We are in a unique position, and we need special arrangements to allow us to take advantage of our situation. Our experience with dual currency has been restricted to pound/punt transactions in the border areas. However, we should not forget that there are only three million people using punts in the world. From January 2002, no one will be using punts, Deutschmarks, pesetas, lire or any other of the currencies of the 12 European countries involved. There will be more than 300 million people using euros. Northern Ireland, whether we like it or not, could find itself awash with euros in the months and years to come.
What should our traders, tourist establishments, businesses and bankers do? Should they operate a dual currency system? Can they afford to take on the exchange rate risk? Can they afford not to? Do they simply say "No euros served here"? I believe that those days are gone. Our farmers, businesses, industries and the public need guidance and support. Above all, they need clear political direction. That is why urgent action is needed. By calling on the Government to make the necessary legal and financial arrangements for the euro to be officially recognised as a second currency alongside sterling — I emphasise "alongside" sterling — we are simply asking for arrangements to be made to accommodate, facilitate and, where is it in the interests of business and industry, encourage the use of the euro in financial transactions in Northern Ireland.
We are not calling for laws to be imposed to force people to accept euros against their will. It should be done on a voluntary basis, and it should be demand-led and market-driven. The difference between that situation and what is being called "cross-border currency creep" — which will inevitably take place — is that we would be giving the euro an official welcome and preparing ourselves for what will happen.

Mr Roy Beggs: The motion, as it currently stands, is calling for the euro to be recognised as a second currency alongside sterling. That would mean that the euro would be legal tender and that any shop in Northern Ireland would have to transact business based upon it. The motion is, therefore, not introducing the euro on a voluntary basis, but rather putting it on a compulsory footing. That would add additional costs to every retail and tourist outlet in Northern Ireland. Does the Member accept that her motion, as it currently stands, is not a means of introducing the euro on a voluntary basis?

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member’s comments give me the opportunity to explain matters. It is important that Members understand the situation.
I asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, about the euro and the matter of legal tender, and he explained that the euro is legal tender in Northern Ireland already. Foreign currencies are legal tender, so legal recognition does not mean that a currency is imposed upon traders, and I am not calling for it to be made compulsory tender. From the point of view of a party that is pro-European, there is no point in trying to force the euro upon shopkeepers. That would hardly endear them to the currency. The euro is legal tender, and it is treated in the same way as the dollar and the yen. Sterling is the only legal currency of the United Kingdom. I am asking for the euro to be given special status, for its "foreign currency" label to be removed and for it to be treated differently from the dollar and the yen. I say again that it would not be compulsory — it would be on a voluntary basis, demand-led and market-driven.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is the Member drawing a distinction between legal tender and a double currency? The Member seems to be defining what is legal tender, then saying that she does not want it to be legal tender, although she claims that it is so — she wants it to be a second currency.
Can the Member explain that? It will take a good deal of explaining. Does she think, in the name of all good fortune, that the British Government will listen to a debate attended in this manner in the Assembly, and make a drastic change to the entire financial arrangements of the United Kingdom before the referendum takes place? If she thinks so, she must be living in a country whose name I do not even know.

Ms Jane Morrice: I will go to great pains to explain matters to Members who do not understand them. Sir Reg Empey informed the House that the euro is already legal tender in Northern Ireland — Members can refer to Hansard on that. I went to great pains to phone the Treasury and ask for an explanation. The explanation was given to me, and I was grateful for it. All foreign currencies are legal tender because they can be traded in this country. The UK has a very liberal regime in that regard. The euro should not be treated as foreign currency. My next remarks are for the benefit of Rev Dr Ian Paisley in particular. I do not know whether the Bank of England has been listening to the previous discussions in Northern Ireland, but it has decided to remove the foreign currency label from the euro. That important step has been taken in the City of London.
There are practical benefits. Members will understand the plight of the farmers. They are crying out for help. Their exports have been crippled by the strength of sterling, as we know well. They are sympathetic towards the United Kingdom’s entry into the single European currency. It would be a positive move for the farmers. Why should we make them wait for the outcome of a referendum?
I do not know whether Members are aware of it, but earlier this year the European Council of Ministers agreed that subsidies to farmers could be paid in euros. However, the UK Government have so far applied that form of payment to export refunds only. In other words, only the large, exporting farmers can benefit. What happens to the small farmers? Why can they not receive all their subsidies — which can make up as much as 100% of their wage packets — in euros? If that is allowed by Europe, why are the UK Government preventing it? I understand that the Ulster Farmers’ Union would be very pleased to see subsidies paid in euros.
Big businesses — and not just those in the border areas — will move to a dual-currency regime themselves. They recognise that it is in their interests to do so. That, however, could leave the small businesses, which cannot afford to operate in two currencies, high and dry. Euro customers will flock to the large retail outlets, which will be offering goods and change in euros. The small businesses will be bypassed. We need a level playing field.
The United Kingdom Government have got us into this situation. It is the duty of the Treasury to provide appropriate financial support to allow our small businesses to operate in euros and sterling if they so desire. I want to underline that — if small businesses want to use euros, they should be allowed to do so, and they should be given appropriate financial support directly from London.
Tourism is vital to our economy, and we want it to grow. The Minister in charge of tourism, Sir Reg Empey, has said that he expects two thirds of our tourists to come from the euro zone this year. That is as a result of the slowdown in transatlantic traffic in the aftermath of the events of 11 September. We are also attempting to market Ireland — North and South — as a tourist destination. Sir Reg Empey has said that it will be difficult to do that because we are dealing in two currencies.
By encouraging our large and small hotels, our restaurants and our tourist facilities in Northern Ireland to operate in euros as well as in pounds, we send an important message to our guests: Northern Ireland is open for all business.
We must also send an important message to foreign investors. Allowing them to operate in euros would encourage them to regard Northern Ireland as a special place to do business, either in euros or in pounds. They can use Northern Ireland as a stepping stone to a European market of 300 million people, and do so in the currency of their choice. They will avoid the huge cost of foreign exchange. That is something that the new super-agency should look into.
I could talk forever about the benefits of moving towards a dual currency system — in cross-border trade, for example, which we are trying to promote. With regard to cross-border transport, do we want Ulsterbus to become "Ulster bureau de change on wheels"? Bus drivers should be allowed to take their money in euros and to give their change in euros. Should not students who study abroad be entitled to receive their grants in euros if they wish? What about people who regularly travel abroad? The list is endless.
I want to stress, to Mr Beggs in particular, that a dual currency system cannot be imposed upon those who may be reluctant Europeans. It must be operated voluntarily. We must recognise that the euro is a reality. We must stop playing King Canute; we must stop trying to stem the rising tide of the euro onto these shores; we must stop treating it as a foreign body. It is in the best interests of all to facilitate its arrival and to get the best of both worlds.
The Women’s Coalition’s motion is not an attempt to pre-empt the decision of a referendum. As a party we are pro-European; however, we are also pragmatists. We respect the will of the people. By supporting the motion, Members will be supporting a pragmatic solution to accommodate the euro in Northern Ireland, and they will be sending an important message to our European partners. The motion is not intended to introduce the euro by the back door. Rather, it places Northern Ireland at the front door of the euro in the United Kingdom and at the forefront of investment in Europe.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The subject of the euro is a very important one. When the history of Europe since the second world war is written, the introduction of the euro will stand alongside the collapse of the Berlin Wall as one of the most significant events of the past five or six decades. To that extent I congratulate Ms Morrice, and I am grateful to her for moving the motion.
Beyond that, I am struggling with the sense (or otherwise) of the motion. As about 20% of Northern Ireland’s manufacturing output is sold to the prospective "Euroland" — the countries that will make it up from 1 January 2002 — it clearly does make commercial sense for exporting firms to prepare themselves for the euro. No doubt they will do so. However, I doubt, and this is my quarrel with the motion, that we need such a motion to encourage firms to do that.
We must bear in mind that introducing a new currency entails a large administrative cost. The same costs will apply if the euro is introduced as a dual currency in the Province.
The estimated potential cost of that varies between £200 million and £750 million. Those figures derive from the Small Firms Association in the Republic of Ireland, adapted to the size of the Northern Ireland economy, and the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry report on the single currency.
Are the proposers of the motion entirely happy that the Northern Ireland economy should have such a cost imposed on it, which will inevitably follow the introduction of a second, officially recognised currency?

Ms Jane Morrice: It is important that I immediately clear up any misunderstanding. The Member will recall that I said that there will be administrative costs, but I am calling on the UK Treasury to pay those costs. The UK Government got us into this situation. They will pay those costs if we get into the euro, and they should be paying them in advance now. I am not calling on the Northern Ireland economy to pay those costs — I am calling on the Treasury to do so.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Member for her contribution. However, with all respect, it is entirely incredible that HM Treasury would stump up between £200 million and £750 million on the self-indulgent introduction of a dual currency in a single region of the United Kingdom. Week after week in the House, there are repeated calls to reform Barnett and to get extra money from HM Treasury for policing, railways, gas pipelines and hospitals. If we add the euro to that, I imagine that Gordon Brown will start to chew the carpet and say, "Get these mad Northern Irish people away from me".
It is quite clear that the proposers of the motion favour the entire euro project. That is their right, but the majority of public opinion in the United Kingdom is against the introduction of the euro. Indeed, even in Germany — the powerhouse of the Continental European economy — it seems that the majority of opinion, if given a free choice, would vote to retain the Deutschmark. Perhaps the proposers imagine a creeping euro status whereby the Province is half in and half out of the single currency, and that that will forward eventual adoption of the euro.
The economic case against full UK membership of the euro is overwhelming. Therefore, the same arguments surely apply to any formalised dual currency status. A publication entitled ‘The Economic Case Against the Euro’ was issued last month by a group called New Europe. That document proves demonstrably that, under the five economic tests that were set by Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, there is little or no case for either the UK as a whole, or Northern Ireland in particular, joining the euro in the foreseeable future. If that is true for total adoption of the euro, it surely applies to the implication of the strict wording of the motion.
The trade cycles of the UK and the Continental European Union remain out of line, and a common European monetary policy of "one size fits all" will not work. Contrary to Ms Morrice’s argument, neither the euro nor, by implication, dual currency status are needed to promote foreign direct investment into either Northern Ireland or Great Britain. Of IDB-backed external investment into the Province in recent years, 97% came from non-euro countries — only 3% came from the euro zone.
In short, the euro would not be good for jobs for the United Kingdom financial sector or for the overall health of the economy. Before we back the motion, we should remember that the recent experience of the Southern Irish economy’s preparation for the adoption of the euro has not been a happy one. During the 1990s, the Republic experienced rapid economic growth. Much of that can be explained by the free exchange rate that existed at that time. In 1993, the punt was devalued by a substantial amount, which increased competitiveness. Many economists believe that that led to much of the growth of the "Celtic tiger" economy.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Member will recall that the Republic received a heavy subsidy from Europe — something like £6 million a day was poured into the Southern Irish economy.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I agree with the Member that that was a contributory factor, but many Southern Irish economists feel that the devaluation of the punt was of even more significance.
Notwithstanding a favourable macroeconomic performance, the Southern Irish Government have this year been repeatedly subjected to what can only be described as bullying from the European Commission. That is part and parcel of the loss of autonomy — the ability to set policy to fit regional or national conditions. An eminent Southern Irish economist, Prof Peter Neary of University College Dublin, said in 1997 that, as far as he knew, every university economist in the Republic of Ireland was concerned at the harm which would be done to the Southern economy through joining the euro in a position where sterling was not doing so. As the Nobel prizewinning economist Milton Friedman has argued recently about the Southern Irish economy, the euro experiment has represented a case of locking itself to the rest of the EU economies while throwing away the key.
While the aspirations behind this motion are in part worthy, the motion is unnecessary. Where businesses find it beneficial to adapt to a multicurrency set-up, they will do so. They have been doing that for years, especially in the border regions. I can see no advantage in officially recognising a second currency alongside sterling, to use Ms Morrice’s words. She has failed to explain how her motion will differ from what will happen in any case. I oppose the motion.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the motion, which calls on the United Kingdom Government to make the necessary legal and financial arrangements for the euro to be officially recognised from 1 January 2002 as a second currency in Northern Ireland alongside sterling.
I come from Derry, the second city, which is geographically next to Donegal. Since partition, Donegal has suffered economically by being cut off from its natural hinterland. However, being practical, the people of Donegal and ourselves on the other side of the border have got used to living with it and, occasionally, have used the border to our advantage. I could, for example, quote the difference in punt and pound. We know we will get a better rate for sterling if we change it and spend it across the border, and considerable savings can be made. We all notice the queues at filling stations across the border, and that proves my point. We can also save on holidays; everyone wants a bargain and to get the best possible rate.
However, the downside is that for the last year all bills in the Republic of Ireland have been in dual currency — punts and euros. The Republic has got used to it, but we across the border still endeavour to work out rates.
Why should that concern us? After all, the UK Government have still to decide when to join the EU currency and adopt the euro. It concerns us because traders and business people in every border area are gearing up for the euro. It is happening in my city, and it will be more obvious in the run-up to Christmas. To encourage business and to attract customers from the Republic of Ireland, traders traditionally give a very good rate for the punt. In many instances that means punt for pound, and that continues into sale time, after 1 January.
From 1 January 2002 three currencies will be in operation — the punt, the pound and the euro. That will add further confusion. We have the added problem that the punt will no longer be legal tender, North or South, after 9 February. From 1 January 2002 to 9 February 2002, there will be a period of dual circulation when both punt and euro will be accepted. After that, banks in the North will accept punts until 15 February. That will help traders in border areas, as shoppers attempt to get rid of their punts.
In my area, we are aware that individuals are offered large loans in punts, interest free — provided they are paid back in euros. The black market is already in operation.
Banks have also advised business that cheques made out in punts after 31 December will not be accepted.
At a recent seminar in Derry, traders were informed that automated teller machines in Derry will dispense both euros and sterling from the beginning of the new year. Less than 40% of small businesses in the North are prepared for the euro, and 27% are adopting a wait-and- see approach. Therefore, issues such as the exchange rate must be addressed now. The exchange rate is currently set weekly; when the euro is adopted, it must be set daily. Dual pricing must also be addressed, so that customers know how much an item costs. The currency in Northern Ireland needs to be regularised. For us to achieve proper economic stability, the euro must be officially recognised as a second currency.
What is the euro? It is the single currency of the European monetary union, which was adopted by 11 member states on 1 January 1999. Those 11 member states are Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Finland. On 1 January 2001, Greece became the twelfth member state to adopt the euro. The name "euro" was chosen by the European heads of state at a conference in Madrid in December 1995.
What will it be like to use the euro? We shall have to get used to it irrespective of whether we are pro-European. It is similar to the existing national currency except that the bank notes and coins will be different. After January 2002, people who cross the border to spend money in the Republic will receive their change in euros.
We shall experience the real difference when we travel to countries that have adopted the euro, because it will no longer be necessary to exchange currency and, therefore, we shall not have to pay commission. We shall not have to spend time calculating price comparisons, and we shall not have to waste time shopping around for the best exchange rate.
Other countries are adopting the euro. We must prepare for that now. It will, as Ms Morrice said, be a challenge for small businesses. The onus is on the UK Government to provide small businesses with the necessary finance to cope. They will have to make complicated changes to their information technology systems, their pricing and marketing policies and their financial management and accounting systems.
To prepare for that, I ask the Executive to note today’s debate and mandate all Departments to, if requested, pay bills in euros from 1 January 2002. It is imperative that the Assembly show the way forward. I represent a pro-European party, and it is clear, from listening to the debate, that there are few pro-Europeans in the Chamber. I congratulate the mover of the motion, and I support it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I oppose the motion. A gun has been put to our heads. We were told that we can have a referendum, but the euro will be in place before we are allowed to make our decision. The previous speaker told the House that the euro would be adopted anyway. However, the British people stand before the introduction of the euro, and they, through the ballot box, have the right to say whether they want the euro. No one can tell us that we must have it. The referendum will give the British public the opportunity to say either yes or no.
If the British public vote no, what becomes of the hon Lady’s speech? It is utter nonsense for Ms Morrice to tell us that in the cloud cuckoo land in which she lives, the British Government will pay millions of pounds to bring her stupid little motion into effect. We cannot get enough money from the British Government to deal with bed shortages in hospitals. Does Ms Morrice really mean to tell the House that a couple of hundred million pounds will be set aside to fund a part-time euro to dance in tandem with the pound simply to please her?

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member give way?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I shall not give way, because I have been told that I have little time. If the Member wishes to use the motion to create a back door for the adoption of the euro, she is welcome to do so. However, she should acknowledge that it is a back door. She should not tell us about a house with the euro standing at the door.
The Member wants to push the euro in through the back door. I am told that I should write to the Speaker to request that I be paid in euros in future.
We must get down to brass tacks — this motion deals with something that will not happen. There are good reasons why it will not happen: Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The decision to enter or not to enter the single currency will be made as a result of a UK-wide referendum. The decision will be a political, economic and constitutional one of fundamental importance. This debate divides all the parties in Westminster. To listen to some people, one would think that everyone was convinced that we must go down the euro road. Everyone is not convinced, and to say that the farming community wants to follow this route is nonsense.
The farming community is worried about why it does not get the same money as the middlemen. The farmers do not care whether the money is paid in euros or in pounds — they simply want the money, and they deserve it. Farmers do not get the money that they deserve for the job that they do. It is nonsense to say that they want the money to be paid in euros. Not one farming organisation has mentioned that issue to me. The Member must be a miracle woman if she thinks she knows what farmers want.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are at odds on this issue. Only last week, the chairman of the Labour Party, Mr Charles Clarke, said that the Government should recommend entry into the euro even if the Treasury cannot prove that the single currency would be good for the economy. Members of the Cabinet are in public debate about what will happen.
Co-operation between nation states in Europe is to the benefit of those states, but I oppose the creation of a European superstate. Before a country gives up its currency, it should remember that he who pays the piper has the right to call the tune. A country can have independence in nothing if it is not allowed to use its money as it wants.
Members must examine the facts about British trade. The rest of the world is far more important to British trade than the euro zone, and we must remember that. I welcome Sir Reg Empey’s visit to China. If the salvation of our economy lies in Europe, why does he visit China? He does so because he realises that investment in Northern Ireland will not come from the euro zone. We shall not receive vast investment from Europe now. Those days are over, and we must look to other places. We trade as much with America as we do with Germany and France. How can the American Government do well when it pays in dollars and not in euros? Why does the Member not advocate that they change their dollars into euros and start trading in Europe?
The population of the euro zone is slowly decreasing, while the population of the rest of the world is rapidly increasing. The pound and the dollar are overwhelmingly more important for British trade than the euro. The Treasury itself reveals that only 19% of our exported goods are invoiced in euros, while 27% are exported in dollars and 52% in sterling. The pound/ dollar rate is the most stable in the world, so joining the euro would not increase stability for foreign trade — it would probably destabilise it. Although the euro zone will remain an enormously significant trading block, future changes in population and income levels per head mean that its relative significance in the world is at its high-water mark.
New markets will become increasingly important. It is ironic that, as the UK considers abandoning its independent currency for the euro, the importance of trade with the euro zone may be about to fade.
The Member for North Down claims that the motion is about giving guidance to people when the euro arrives. I do not understand what she means. The euro is replacing the Irish punt, but there has never been any need for a dual currency system while the punt was legal tender. The idea that the euro will flood across the border and that people will not know how to deal with it is nonsense.
She argues that farmers want the euro. What does she base that argument on? Farmers want a fair deal for their products from those who buy them in the production chain. It is regrettable that the Member believes that the introduction of the euro will cure the ills of the farming community. It will do nothing of the kind.
The people of the UK will decide if, and when, they will enter the euro zone — no one will decide for them. Judging by what the hon Member from the Official Unionists said, it seems there has been a turning of the tide for the euro. As a result, there is no need for a King Canute. The winds of business and trade are telling us not to stay in the euro zone, but rather to get business from every nook and cranny of the planet into Northern Ireland.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion is useful in opening up the debate on the euro — an issue that has not been debated enough — and I welcome the opportunity to speak about it. However, my party will not be supporting the motion because it is not practical, and because neither Gordon Brown nor Tony Blair will defer to the implications of the motion if it is passed.
An informal dual currency has been operating on this island, and it will continue to operate after 1 January 2002. Sinn Féin would like to see a united Irish currency that operates outside the European monetary union and that will retain the economic power and control that comes with having an independent currency. That will include the power to set interest rates, control the growth of money supply and determine an ideal exchange rate position. These are vital tools of any state’s economic strategy and play a crucial role in ensuring a dynamic sustainable economy.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I detect an undercurrent of conversation — it is difficult to hear what Dr O’Hagan is saying.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: The experience with the euro has shown that the European Central Bank takes no account of the needs of the small economies on the periphery of Europe when formulating monetary policy.
The present dual currency system works against the creation of a united Irish economy, as will the introduction of the euro. The scenario of Britain being outside the single currency while the Twenty-six Counties adopt it creates an economic fault line between North and South on this island. Although Sinn Féin is opposed to the European monetary union in its current form, it does not want to see more obstacles to economic development and trade on the island. We must, therefore, ensure that the introduction of the euro does not cause yet another blockage to positive economic development on the island of Ireland.
The failure of the EU itself, as well as the Irish and British Governments, to consider the negative effects of the euro on trade in Ireland shows the lack of thought that has been put into the actual effects of introducing a single currency.
The economic effects of partition in border areas are greater than ever. Changing currency values leave communities on both sides of the border continually seeking the best means of increasing their spending power. Short-term gains for consumers on either side of the border are no recompense for the long-term damage inflicted on the border economy by this dual currency predicament. Therefore, the motion, as it stands, does not address the greater problem of economic sovereignty and the underlying economic problems.
The euro project is the centrepiece of a process of economic and political integration, in which more and more power is to be ceded, not only to centralised decision-making processes but to a range of unelected bodies. Participation in the euro has removed substantial economic decision-making powers from the Dublin Government. The ability to run deficits, borrow money and set exchange and interest rates is gone. The Twenty-six Counties are now victim to a "one-size-fits-all" policy formulated and managed not by any elected body but by the autonomous European Central Bank (ECB). Not one Irish official is among the senior management of that bank. Added to that is an ongoing campaign to end the right of the Dublin Government to set their own tax rates. That litany of failure should be nothing new to the people of the Six Counties or to our business community. For years, we have all been victim to the same "one-size-fits-all" policies of Westminster, which were formulated with little thought to the economic impact that decisions will have outside England.
A single EU currency, in its current format, is not of benefit to the island of Ireland economy. Until 1979, we had a single currency on the island of Ireland, and a connection with sterling. The Twenty-six Counties have merely substituted one unsatisfactory form of monetary union for another. We want to bring real power back to the people of the island of Ireland, not to be ceded to a new union. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr David Ford: I am grateful for the previous two Members’ contributions. If I had any doubt about the motion’s virtue, the terms on which it has been rejected by the DUP and Sinn Féin enable me to be sure that it has considerable merit.
My party fully supports the swift and early entry of the UK into the European monetary union. There is no doubt that the current self-exclusion policy of the UK Government brings uncertainty to businessmen and potential investors — whether domestic or external — and creates dislocations on this island and in the UK as a whole. It is time that action was taken to address that.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Will the Member give way?

Mr David Ford: After only 49 seconds — certainly.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Member. His point is that self-exclusion dislocates business. How does he explain the fact that the UK gross domestic produce growth is higher than that of "Euroland", and is projected to be higher again next year?

Mr David Ford: Those of us who witnessed what happened to the British economy during the Thatcher years of the 1980s have little difficulty in seeing the lower base from which the British economy is now recovering. It is certainly not an economy that is booming and forging ahead of Europe. Rather, it is one starting from a low base and that is still catching up with Europe. No doubt the better economic minds on the Ulster Unionist Benches, and in the Speaker’s Chair at present, will continue to deal with that debate for some months.
I interpret the resolution from Ms Morrice and Prof McWilliams as one looking towards some voluntary arrangements to deal with the inevitable currency difficulties. There is no doubt that the changeover to the euro, the expectations of developments in that direction and what Dr O’Hagan has described as the informal dual currency system pose problems for small business. There is no doubt that unless we do something to assist small businesses to deal with that, there will be economic difficulties for this region that will not apply elsewhere in the UK. It is therefore right that we should seek ways to deal with that problem and to assist small businesses to cope with the situation.
Mrs Courtney spoke about cross-border trade, as it affects commerce in the city of Derry. There are, of course, many small firms in border areas — and, increasingly, in other parts of Northern Ireland — that are having to adapt their work to deal with cross-border activity and the two-currency problems entailed in that. Dr Paisley correctly suggests that farmers are more concerned about getting a fair share for their production than the precise currency in which it is paid. However, surely even he would agree that it is a little bizarre to hear journalists discuss on the radio the ewe premium being set at 21 euros, when nobody knows whether, when it is actually paid, it will be 61p, 62p, 63p or 64p — or whatever — per euro. That is a fundamental issue, and I have heard farmers complain about their inability to predict the value of European grants. However, that, of course, is an argument to support all of the UK adopting the euro, rather than one specific region.
Changes are starting to occur, and the UK Government are clearly preparing for the referendum that will lead to the UK’s entry into the European monetary union. It is, therefore, right that the particular problems that we experience — in the only UK region that has a land frontier with the euro zone — should be addressed. Small businesses should be given the assistance that they require, whether it be from the Treasury or from the Department of Finance and Personnel.
Ms Jane Morrice said that the UK Government had got us into this mess — they certainly have some obligation to assist the economic development of this region and to help us to get out of the mess. Looking back some years, we were in a situation where the punt and sterling were part of a common currency union but not of a customs union. Now we are part of a common customs union without being in a currency union. Perhaps we will achieve the full benefits that are necessary for our economic development, and that of the other part of the island, only when we are both in the same customs and currency union.
I may have some reservations about the precise way in which the motion is phrased, but the terms in which it has been outlined by the proposer make it worthy of support. There is no doubt in my mind that the euro represents the best way forward for this society, and the motion is a step towards recognising the transitional nature of the arrangements that will exist from 1 January 2002. I support the motion, and I ask the House to support the concept of practical measures to deal with the informal currency system that we are about to enter.

Mr Roy Beggs: I oppose the motion, and I will speak about the wording of it rather than comment on what the proposer of the motion has said. We vote on the wording of the motion, and that is what we should be talking about. Government can legislate and make financial arrangements, but who will pay for their implementation? Who will pay for new cash registers and new accountancy software in our businesses? Will it be the taxpayer, or will it fall to our hard-pressed businesses just as we are entering difficult financial trading times?
The motion refers to the official recognition of the euro as a second currency. Euros will, of course, be traded in Northern Ireland in the same way as punts, francs and pesetas have been traded. That is already happening, so why is it being called for in the motion? Why have we stated the emotive date of 1 January 2002, when the euro will replace all those currencies in Europe? It is obvious that Ms Morrice is looking for much more than is currently happening, and I am taking a reasonable interpretation of the wording of the motion — as opposed to what the proposer has said.
The motion refers to there being a second currency alongside sterling. It refers to a second currency and not to all the other currencies in the world, such as the dollars, that can be traded. Surely it is therefore referring to a second currency that is to be used in our tills. That is a reasonable assumption. What the Member has said in the debate does not add up to what is written in her motion. My understanding is that if her motion were to be agreed, the measures would not be introduced on a voluntary basis.
Nowhere in the motion is it stated that that should happen on a voluntary basis. As I said earlier, this is happening automatically on a voluntary basis. Businesses that rely on trade in other parts of Europe or across the border — hoteliers, and so forth — are already making preparations. It is important that they provide convenient payment methods for their potential customers.
The motion concerns compulsory dual currency, which would be the worst possible outcome for Northern Ireland. It would mean additional costs for Northern Ireland, the only place in Europe that would have dual currency. If the motion were to be adopted, additional costs would be imposed on our businesses that would not exist anywhere else in "Euroland" or in the United Kingdom. That would disadvantage businesses.
The Member also calls on central Government to provide additional funds to pay for preparations for dual currency. As my Colleague has stated, that would cost hundreds of millions of pounds. How high on the list of priorities for public expenditure in Northern Ireland is preparation for the euro? If additional funding were given from the Barnett formula because of euro preparation, would the choice be to spend millions of pounds converting tills and accountancy software? Surely it would be spent on health, education, public transport and the protection of children rather than on financing the Member’s single euro indulgence.
Banks, businesses, retailers and hoteliers are already making these preparations. It is right and proper that they should do so. The official recognition of a second currency would mean having two currencies in the tills. That is my interpretation, and I must reinforce that point. It would be an extremely expensive exercise for rural shopkeepers and for proprietors of corner shops in urban areas. How many tourists are expected in order to justify the additional financial burden in having dual currency and dual accounts? Firms could go out of business.
The euro is being presented as a solution to all our ills. However, the single European currency would hand over some economic control to Europe and would ultimately lead to the further development of a European superstate. To date, close co-operation has been beneficial to all the people of Europe. Now that Northern Ireland has devolution, the real danger is that, if a European superstate were to be promoted, more and more decision-making would be handed over to that superstate. We may also receive a flood of European Directives, as is already being experienced by Assembly Committees. There is no choice involved with European Directives; they must be approved. So much for devolution.
Who contributed to the decision-making on the preparation of these European Directives? The people of Northern Ireland have little involvement in that process. Decisions are made at a high level by representatives of the Governments of all the nation states in Europe. There is little consultation with the Northern Ireland Assembly on any of these Directives.
The Committee of the Centre is currently conducting an investigation into interaction with the European Community. That may be an important area that is not being dealt with. A European superstate goes completely against the grain of devolution. More decision-making is being handed over to European central Governments above the heads of the people. There will be limited means of influencing decisions.
The motion, as it stands, does not correspond with the mover’s words. I oppose additional costs on local businesses and increased central control by a European superstate, and I oppose the motion.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I remind Members to switch off mobile phones and pagers before coming into the Chamber.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome this all-too-brief opportunity to have a debate on the euro, although it is an oblique discussion. We are not talking about introducing the euro directly, although many of my colleagues have been talking about that. The euro will be legal tender from 1 January 2002. I reassure Esmond Birnie that he is not the only person who is confused. We are all struggling to discover what it will mean for us. It is timely that we should face the issue.
Much of the discussion in the Chamber has been about the pros and cons of the euro. However, from the wording of the motion I do not think that that is the issue. We all accept that the euro will not be the official currency in Northern Ireland or Britain after 1 January. This is not about replacing sterling; it is about facing the reality that in 27 days time the cash in people’s pockets and the currency in their bank accounts and chequebooks will change in most of Europe.
Punts will remain for approximately a month until the banks gather them in. After 9 February there will be no more French or Belgian francs, lire, guilders, pesetas, Deutschmarks, drachmas, or markka. There will still be Danish and Swedish kronor, as well as sterling. For most people the currencies that are disappearing represent 1% or 2% of their expenditure. When added together, about 10% of our financial expenditure could be handled in euros.
Most of us do not admit that we go across the border to buy fuel for our cars. Many local transport companies have re-registered vehicles in the South and buy their fuel there. Many of us spend the odd weekend in Dublin or elsewhere in Southern Ireland, in places such as Donegal, and many of us holiday abroad. The combined impact of this will be much greater than that of people from the South spending punts in the North. I estimate that it could be two or three times greater.
The greatest interest will be in tourism. Almost all of our tourist expenditure will be in euros. We will still have British visitors, and I hope that we will still have Canadian and American visitors, although the transatlantic trade is down. We may have some Swedish visitors, but they do not form a big section of our tourist market. I hope that we will have Southern Irish visitors, and a few French, Spanish, German, Italian, Dutch and Belgian visitors. I am not just talking about past visitors, I am talking about those whom we hope to bring here, and those for whom the Tourist Board and Tourism Ireland Limited are marketing. All of those people will have euros in their pockets.
I have no doubt that many of our tourist businesses and entrepreneurs in other fields will accept euros. They will be accepted in the same way as the Irish pound has been exchangeable along the border and in many large stores in Belfast and in provincial towns. They will be accepted in the same way as sterling can be exchanged in Dublin, and the punt works in Newry, Derry and Belfast — on an unofficial and informal basis.
There will be many more euros to handle than there ever were punts. Any unwillingness, disinterest or lack of enthusiasm on the part of shops, bars or hotels to freely accept or tolerate the euro, will be seen by tourists as awkward, unfriendly and unwelcoming. It will give a less than subtle message that their business is not wanted, and they may decide not to come back.
I am not making a case for or against the euro. On 1 January, we will still have sterling, but our dealings with external currency will change. How will we grapple with that? I have a small business interest, and the bank has already advised me to set up a euro account to deal with what are trivial bits and pieces of exchange. As I understand it, most small businesses are being advised along those lines. Up to 20% of our financial transactions, whether they are for business, tourism or personal reasons, will be in euros. We will not need to spend vast amounts of money that are badly needed elsewhere, but we need to create and manage a euro tolerance. Otherwise, the clumsiness that might emerge will inflict damage on our credibility.
Despite the fact that we will remain a sterling zone, we need to encourage people to be familiar with the euro. When they get on a plane and go to any European country on holiday, the euro will be the currency. When I go abroad, it takes me about three days to become familiar with the currency. The challenge, and the motivation behind Ms Morrice’s motion, is to create a sensible connection between the two financial systems that makes sense of the exchange between them, so that our import and export business can move freely.
I do not wish to deal today with the strong case in favour of the euro. I know that those who are opposed have an equally strong case against it. I want to make a simple, rational, common-sense case for coexistence or cohabitation.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Please draw your remarks to a close, Dr McDonnell.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I like to believe that sterling will still be acceptable along the border, and perhaps in Dublin and at the interface with France, Belgium and Holland. We must get to grips with that situation and make exchange easy for business.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am not surprised that the motion has been put down by the Women’s Coalition and supported vociferously by the Alliance Party. The motion calls for two currencies in Northern Ireland. As we have all witnessed in the last couple of weeks, when it comes to schizophrenia, both parties are very adept at behaving in that way. A couple of weeks ago, they wanted to belong to two communities. They wanted to be Unionist, and they wanted to be Nationalist. Now they want to have pounds, and they want to have euros.

Ms Jane Morrice: It is the best of both worlds.

Mr Sammy Wilson: It is the worst of all worlds; that is the problem. If it were the best of both worlds, the DUP would support the motion. Let us consider the arguments. Members have been told that Northern Ireland cannot help but be affected by this issue because it shares a land boundary with a country of the euro zone. I am not very touched by that argument. It is not a new phenomenon that two countries that share a land boundary should have to deal with different currencies. That happened in Europe until this year.

Ms Jane Morrice: There were not 300 million of them.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Three hundred million people use dollars, and more of those people come here on holiday than those from Europe. We are not awash with dollars. Nevertheless, there is an argument that there must be a special arrangement in Northern Ireland because many people will be using euros and because we share a land boundary with the euro zone. If those special arrangements are not required between Canada and the United States or between France and Germany until this year, why should there be a special case for Northern Ireland after 1 January 2002?
It has also been said that treating the euro as the second currency in Northern Ireland will be voluntary. However, Ms Morrice does not regard this as voluntary. In fact, its being voluntary would invalidate all her arguments. On one hand she says that it will be a disaster if businesses do not recognise the euro as a second currency; on the other hand she says that they can pick and choose whether they want it. She must make up her mind, although I know that that is difficult.
Members were also told that it would help farmers. I have taught some economics students in my life; some of them were good, and others were poor. However, if I were marking an essay by Ms Morrice, I would not give it a pass grade. She says that if farmers were paid in euros, all their concerns about the effects of the exchange rate would cease. What does she think the farmers will do with the euros when they get them? They are not going to pay wages, electricity bills or feed bills with them. They will have to change them into sterling. Therefore, the argument that euros will do away with the exchange problems that farmers have been complaining about is false.
That takes me to the logical extension of her argument, which is, as my hon Friend Dr Paisley said, that the euro be introduced into Northern Ireland as the first step towards imposing a common currency on the United Kingdom.
Ms Morrice said that the introduction of the euro would help tourism. An article from ‘Ulster Business’ quotes a man who should know about tourism because he owns several hotels in Northern Ireland. Howard Hastings has said that we should say "yes" to Europe — as Dr Paisley said earlier — but "no" to the euro. That is the view of someone who works in tourism every day, who knows the effects and who has said that these arguments are not valid.
It was also argued that the euro would make Northern Ireland’s trade with Europe easier. Dr Birnie pointed out that 80% of Northern Ireland’s international trade is outside the euro zone. Therefore, most businesses will still have to deal with exchange fluctuations. Some businesses have traded almost exclusively in dollars for many years, but they do not argue that Northern Ireland must join the Federal Reserve or introduce the dollar into Northern Ireland. Trading, as the currency exists, can be done; it is done every day. Nevertheless, Members are told that if they do not agree the motion, Northern Ireland will face economic disaster.
Of course, we should not worry about the cost; we can get it from the Treasury. That is the final argument — let us go to the Treasury, hold out our hands, and it will pay.
If the Treasury were to give Northern Ireland another 200 million quid, I would want it to be spent on something more than slot machines and cash registers. Yet, it appears that this is the priority that the Women’s Coalition, the Alliance Party and, it seems, the SDLP share in the event of the extra money becoming available. Let me give an example. A newspaper recently published an article about a company which runs a few buses between Donegal and Northern Ireland. It reckoned that the changeover to the euro will cost it £40,000. That is for one small business. That will be multiplied across Northern Ireland, and the figures estimated are £200 million or £700 million — nobody is sure.
I can think of far better things to spend our money on, especially when all of the arguments that have been made are fallacious. The reason behind this is not that it will help the farmers and tourism, that it is realistic or that it will help our trade with the rest of Europe. The real reason is that those euro fanatics who are looking at the political landscape in the United Kingdom know that 80% of the population in the United Kingdom will not voluntarily vote to go into the euro zone. So what do you do? Esmond Birnie has described it; you introduce the currency by stealth, "euro creep", as it is called — or "euro creeps".

Ms Jane Morrice: What would the Member do if the referendum in Northern Ireland were counted separately and Northern Ireland voted for entry into the single currency?

Mr Sammy Wilson: Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and I hope that it will be treated as such when it comes to a referendum count. I have no doubt that good sense will prevail in Northern Ireland as much as it will prevail in the rest of the United Kingdom and that the people here will oppose it.
The fact of the matter is — and Esmond Birnie has mentioned it — that it is less and less likely that the five economic tests that Gordon Brown has set will be met. It is less and less likely that people in the United Kingdom will be persuaded to voluntarily accept the euro. We have seen the kind of interference that comes from Europe — it is now telling the Irish Republic how much tax it can levy. We are not members of the euro zone, yet it is telling Gordon Brown how much he can spend. Next week we will discuss the Budget. Under the proposals for a common currency, Brussels can determine our level of spending and taxation.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Time is up.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I will finish now. That is why people will reject the introduction of the euro. That is why we have to have it sneaked in by the back door. That is the real motive behind the motion.

Mr Mark Robinson: On 1 January 1999, the euro was launched to great acclaim and much media frenzy. We were informed of the many benefits associated with the euro; how it would be a strong currency and would one day rival the mighty dollar. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
For the first three years, the new currency has struggled in the markets, and its value has plummeted month after month. Advocates of a single currency feel that it makes sound business and economic sense, in that it will create lower interest rates and faster growth. However, interest rates are unique to each country. No one interest rate fits all; no one interest rate is right for both Belfast and Brussels.
It is, therefore, obvious that countries that have signed up to the single currency will end up with interest rates that are either too high or too low. How could any country be sure that it is getting a fair deal in line with the needs of that particular country? One currency, one bank, one interest rate will inevitably lead to common taxation, one budget and one economic policy. As I have already mentioned, each country is very different economically, so how can a single budget, which will meet the needs of every country, be created?
There will obviously be winners and losers. If we look at the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, it is blatantly obvious who the winners and losers were. As part of the common fisheries policy, the EU tightened the quota system against the United Kingdom. As a result, thousands of trawlermen have lost their jobs, and hundreds of vessels have been taken out of commission. Under the latest proposals, Britain is expected to cut her fishing fleet under the quota system by another 40%. The decimation of the fishing industry has caused problems of unemployment and recession in the fishing towns and villages across our Province. This is one all-too-obvious example of how community policy can damage not only jobs and employment, but the social and community fabric in affected areas.

Mr Jim Shannon: Does the Member agree that while the fishing industry in the United Kingdom has suffered because of job and boat losses, other European fleets have done better at the expense of the fish in UK waters?

Mr Mark Robinson: In agreeing with my Colleague, I would like to thank him for illuminating the point that I was making.
The assertion of governmental or imperial power has always rested upon the assertion of the rights to levy taxes, to spend money and to impose a portrait of the head of the king or queen upon the coin. The European Union is following a well-trodden path in wishing to issue and design its own coinage. The power to tax is fundamental in establishing governmental rights. It is difficult to see why we would even contemplate a common economic policy run by the very people who brought us the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy.
In discussing the single currency, we cannot help but mention the fact that we would be moving towards the centralisation of federal power and, therefore, the creation of a single Government. How would it be possible to govern a single country called Europe, given the different languages, histories, cultures, identities, et cetera? Each and every country should be proud of its heritage and culture. Unfortunately, the introduction of a single currency is only going to further weaken our culture and our identity.
Yes, Northern Ireland is unique in that it shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland, which as we all know has opted to introduce the euro. However, this should not pose any great difficulty, as we have managed for over 20 years with two different currencies, since the Republic of Ireland introduced its own currency by replacing the pound with the punt.
It is an absurd notion to have the two currencies working alongside one another. The cost of implementing this would be phenomenal. The costs of conversion are huge. Every computer, vending machine, slot machine, accounting system and bank telling machine would need to be changed. There are over 20,000 automated teller machines handling the existing type of paper currency note in the UK. All of these would have to be replaced to handle entirely different styles and shapes of notes. Also, 500,000 point-of-sale terminals in shops around the country would require either fundamental overhaul or replacement to handle any new currency. All accounting and cash settlement systems would need to be adjusted in order to deal in the redenominated currency, and in the period of transition these would need to shift from sterling to the euro and back again using the fixed conversion factor.
Around the European Union as a whole, there are 12 billion bank notes in circulation and another eight billion in store. All or most of these would need to be replaced with new ones. The complete coinage would require reminting into the new shapes and specifications of the euro. In the case of a small shopkeeper, the costs would be considerable. They would have to make facilities available for transactions in both sterling and euros. In practice, this would mean doubling up the number of tills in the shop to handle two separate sets of banknotes and coins. The total cost to business is estimated at more than £30 billion in total.
What return could they possibly earn on this? In effect, it would be all cost and no benefit. Who would end up footing this bill? Would the customer end up paying the price in more ways than one? We should be proud of the pound and all that it stands for. John Redwood MP said that if we join the euro, there is no point to general elections, as so many of the important decisions about our prosperity will be taken behind closed doors by unelected officials in some far away bank.

Ms Jane Morrice: I would like to address several issues. The issue of cost was raised by Dr Birnie and by several Members from the DUP Benches. I would like to tease out that issue in order to understand it better. For example, let us suppose that we will have a referendum. Dr Paisley put this point well. What will happen if the people of the UK say, "Yes"? We will have to convert our currency into euros and have a transitional period. Who will pay for that? Surely the Treasury will not expect the people of Northern Ireland to foot the bill for that currency change? The Treasury will have to pay for the conversion.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Ms Jane Morrice: I do not know how much time I have.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Member’s time is limited, but she can decide to give way.

Ms Jane Morrice: How much time do I have?

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Member has approximately eight minutes.

Ms Jane Morrice: I will not give way, because I must respond to the arguments. If the people of the UK say, "No", we are still going to have euros in Northern Ireland. I make that point in answer to Mr Sammy Wilson’s comments. Has his head been buried in the sand? Does he not visit Newry or any other border town? Does he not see that currency is crossing the border, and that the euro will cross the border? I would point out to him that there are several thousand miles of water between the United States of America and us. Perhaps he has not noticed that. Canada and America have the same problem with cross-border currency and trade.
Some Members got out their single, transferable speeches as soon as they saw the motion on the Order Paper. They began to say "No" to the euro; "No" to entering a single currency; "No" to the central bank, and "No" to a common — [Interruption].

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am not calling for our entry into the single currency, common control or the central bank.

Some Members: Oh yes you are.

Ms Jane Morrice: Oh no I’m not.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. The Member knows that her comments must be directed to the Chair and not to the other side of the Chamber.

Ms Jane Morrice: I will direct my comments through the Chair.
I am not calling for those things. The difference is stated in the motion. The euro should be sitting "alongside sterling". Did Members read that in the motion?
Mr Beggs made an important point. I would like to take time out, because Mr Beggs is probably on the conversion list as far as political persuasion is concerned. He said that he misunderstood the motion because it does not mention the word "voluntary". However, it does not mention the word "compulsory" either. I hope that I have explained that it is about accommodating, facilitating and, when it is in the interests of business and industry, encouraging the use of the euro. I am not talking about its being enshrined in law, or compulsory. I want it to be voluntary, demand-led and market-driven.
I hope that Mr Beggs will understand, and perhaps be persuaded to change his position on the motion, as a result of my explanation.
I thank Dr McDonnell and Mrs Courtney for their support. It was useful to hear Mrs Courtney’s reference to experiences in the border areas. Businesses there are having problems and are having to accommodate for euros without any guidance. However, problems do not occur only in the border areas. I have heard about a small business in north Belfast — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order.

Ms Jane Morrice: — that could not obtain a conversion rate for the euro from the bank. Yes, there are forward- thinking businesses in Northern Ireland, although it seems some banks have yet to get there. I appreciate Dr McDonnell’s point about "euro tolerance". If we do not have that, we shall damage our credibility. Why not have co-existence?
I was disappointed, although not surprised, with Sinn Féin’s position on the motion. That demonstrates how far we still must go to achieve modern political and economic thinking. I thank Mr Ford who pointed out the problems for small business. It is vital that we understand those problems. I also thank him for explaining to those Members who are supposed to be so close to the farming community that he has come across farmers who would appreciate their subsidies being paid in euros. Those Members who think that that is not the case should go to the farmers and ask them. Perhaps they would then respond differently to the motion.

Mr Jim Shannon: How many farmers are there in north Down?

Ms Jane Morrice: There is a problem here, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to make that clear.
I am afraid that those who vote against the motion do not realise that it is a pragmatic solution. They simply "do not want a euro about the place". We are correct to wait for a referendum.
I have already referred to Mark Robinson and Sammy Wilson. I mentioned the head-in-the sand approach and the single transferable speech.
There is no question that the referendum on the UK’s membership of the single European currency will be the deciding factor on whether the UK enters it. The Women’s Coalition believes that the single European currency is important and valuable. However, the criteria and the timing must be right. We in the party are pragmatists. The motion offers a solution in the interim. I remind Members that support for the motion is not necessarily support for the euro, nor is it support for UK membership of the single currency. The motion seeks only to make provision for the unique situation in Northern Ireland.
The euro is a reality. It will make its way north of the border whether we like it or not. Our farmers, our businesses and our industry need to know how to deal with it. By supporting the motion, the Assembly would send out a clear message to the people that it represents — Northern Ireland is open for business in euros and in pounds. Let the people decide.
Question put and negatived.
Adjourned at 4.55 pm.